The URL can be used to link to this page

05/18/2010 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 18, 2009, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Penfold Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Karen Halladay, Policy Analyst; Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Nick Tarbet, Council Analyst and Constituent Liaison; Lehua Weaver, Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Bob Farrington, Economic Development Director; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Yolanda Francisco-Nez, Office of Diversity and Human Rights; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Brian Roberts, Senior City Attorney; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; David Salazar, Compensation Program Administrator; Msarina Scott, Deputy City Treasurer; Ralph Chamness, Senior City Attorney; Eve Furse, Senior City Attorney; Sim Gill, City Prosecutor; Sam Guevara, Assetts; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; David Hart, FAIA , Vice President/Regional Manager MOCA Systems and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Martin presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2 : 10 : 33 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FORM DAVID HART, FAIA, VICE PRESIDENT/REGIONAL MANAGER OF MOCA SYSTEMS, REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES . David Hart, Sam Guevara, David Everitt and Wilf Sommerkorn briefed the Council with the attached handout . #2 . 2 :43 : 35 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010- 2011.View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember 10 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 Christensen asked Mr. Hoskins about the web version of the IFAS accounting system. Mr. Hoskins said this would allow the City to be more transparent with regard to financial reporting. Ms . Gust-Jenson said the system was not user friendly or on the cutting edge. She said staff spent too much time during the budget process . Mr. Hoskins said a new system would be $10 to $15 million. Ms . Bruno asked if the Council wanted a legislative intent regarding transit costs for employees . She said she would gather information. Ms . Chamness said employees had been divided into transit areas and this information was available. Councilmember Simonsen asked Mr. Hoskins to look at the music licensing contracts . He said this was not a core need and might be eliminated. Councilmember Martin asked why we had three licenses . A discussion was held regarding Item 29, Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Evaluation in Implementation Strategy concluding with the need for one time only funding of $100, 000 . #3 . 3 : 58 : 12 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011. View Attachments Fire Chief Kurt Cook, David Everitt and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms . Gust-Jenson said staffing for Fire Plan Review was short by one half on the CED side and needed to be looked at . #4 . 4 : 19 : 01 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 2010-2011. Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Sim Gill and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Weaver said one change for the Attorney' s Office was the transfer of the Recorder' s Office to the department. View Attachments. #5. 4 :49 : 26 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE PROPOSED FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE PROPOSED HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011.View Attachments Gordon Hoskins, Deb Alexander and Sylvia Richards briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Richards said the new Department of Finance and included the division of accounting, division of purchasing and contracts, revenue auditing, business licensing, office of the City Treasurer and the division of financial reporting and accounting. She said the Council would be holding a collections 10 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 briefing on June 1, 2010 . 4 : 51 :45 Ms . Alexander said they were putting new process in place. #6. (TENTATIVE) DISCUSSION REGARDING UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET. #7 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING AY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES)WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OF PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §52-4-205 (1) (d) , STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS PENDING REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §52-4- 205 (1) (c) ; FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; AND FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §78B-1-137 . Councilmember moved and Councilmember seconded to enter into the closed session, which motion carried all members voted aye. #8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 10-5 for announcements . Th in dj o ned at 5 :4 8 . . • //,,z;> Alt uncil C it • ity ecord r ��k P010'/ This document along with the igital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 18, 2010 . cm 10 - 3 /i /io ALS : r RTS - CITY- CO CZL STA'F SO .t d ►fS S- 'FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 18, 2010 BUDGET FOR: NON-DEPARTMENTAL (General Fund) STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins The Non-Departmental budget provides a means to account for General Fund monies transferred to other funds,and disbursements to civic organizations that provide a service on behalf of Salt Lake City but which are not legal entities of the City. The Non-Departmental budget represents 18% of the total General Fund budget. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2010-11 contains several increases and decreases for a net decrease of$11.3 million(25.1%). The majority of the decrease ($10.8 million) is due to a shift in accounting practices as they relate to General Obligation bonds. In FY 2010,General Obligation Bond-related property taxes were taken into the general fund as a revenue,and then passed through Non-Departmental as an expense (to pay for debt service). Starting in FY 2011,General Obligation Bond-related property taxes will be passed directly to the Debt Service Fund (accounted for outside the General Fund). The proposed general fund budget for Non-Departmental,comparing FY 2010 to FY 2011 by line item,is listed in the chart on the next page. PROPOSED NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET Adopted Budget 'Proposed Budget` Difference Percent , 2009-10 2010-11 Change Municipal Contributions/Civic Support ' Civic Opportunities Fund-Find Night $ 15,000, $ 15,000 $ - 0.0% Civic Opportunities Fund-Special Events Fund , $ 150,0001 $ 150,000 $ - 0.0% Community Emergency Winter Housing 74,530' 75,030 $ 500 0.7% Economic Development Corporation of Utah 132,992, 108,000 $ (24,992) -18.8% Gifts/Receptions 15,000, 15,000;$ - 0.0% Gang Prevention , 70,000' 70,000:$ - 0.0% Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1,500j 1,500 $ - 0.0% Housing Authority Transitional Housing 127,500 70,000'$ (57,500), -45.1% Music Licensing Fees 0 7,000 $ 7,000 new Legal Defenders 849,176 831,071 $ (18,105): -2.1% National League of Cities I 11,535' 11,535.$ 0.0% Sales Taxes Rebate 165,000, 150,000.$ (15,000)' -9.1% Salt Lake Arts Council I 300,000 300,000,$ 0.0% Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce 50,000 50,000 $ - 0.0% Salt Lake Council of Governments 23,190; 21,746`$ (1,444); -6.2% Salt Lake Valley Conference of Mayors 225; 225.$ 0.0% Sister Cities I 10,000: 10,000:$ - 0.0% Sugarhouse Park Authority 190,184• 172,184 $ (18,000) -9.5% Tracy Aviary 450,000; 425,000,$ (25,000)! -5.6% U.S.Conference of Mayors 12,609 12,609.$ - 0.0% Utah League of Cities and Towns 117,869 117,869,$ - 0.0% One-tlme Aonroariatioof , Twilight Concert Series - 15,000. Special Events Fund-one-time funding 75,000. - SaltLakeArtsCouncil-one-time funding for grants 36,000 - Sugarhouse Park Authority-one time funding for fireworks 15,000• Northwest Quadrant Master Plan-one-time funding - 100,000: North Temple/Grand Boulevard 300,000 - Sales Taxes Rebate for Kamatsu 30,000 Local First 20,000 15,000 Jordan River Implementation 14,000' No More Homeless Pets of Utah 20,000 20,000' Unemployment Costs 0 166,860. Demographer Contract 0, 30,000 Municipal Elections 377,082 0 Neighborhood Node Study 75,000 0 Weigand Center 80,000 60,000, Total Municipal Contributions/Civic Support $ 3,764,392 $ 3,064,629 $ (699,763) -18.6% Other Programs Annual Financial Audit 260,100 260,100 $0 0.0% IFAS-Accounting System Maintenance Agreement 81,756 117,221, $35,465 43.4% One-time iFAS expenses for Software 30,000 0 ($30,000) -100.0% Animal Services 1,241,836 1,241,836 $0 0.0% Geographic Information System Support 35,000, 30,000 ($5,000) -14.3% Local lobbyist 20,000 25,000 $5,000 25.0% Legislative Support 0 20,000 $ 20,000 new Non CDBG Mailings 6,000' 6,000 $0 0.0% Pension Contribution(allGFdepartments) 16,695 425,000 $408,305 2445.7% Retirement payments(cash payouts and severance) 693,899 500,000 ($193,899) -27.9% Salt Lake Solutions 52,000 52,000 $ - 0.0% Sorenson Center-Transfer toSLCounty 880,878 $ 880,878 new Street lighting-electrical power 1,475,000 1,075,000 ($400,000) -27.1% Tuition aid program 85,000 85,000 $0 0.0% Washington DC Consultant 60,000, 60,000 $0 0.0% Total Other Programs ,$ 4,057,286 $ 4,778,035. $ 720,749 17.8% Debt Service-Tax&Revenue Anticipation Notes Interest Expense on TaxRevenue Anticipation Notes 463,125 420,000 ($43,125) -5.9% Bonding/Note Expense 35,000' 35,000 $0 0.0% Total Debt Service $ 498,125 $ 455,000 $ (43,125) -8,7% Transfers Capital Improvement Projects Fund(GO,Debt Service,On-going) 23,502,749 12,713,185 ($10,789,564) -45.9% Fleet Replacement Fund 4,370,381 4,000,000 ($370,381) -8.5% Information Management Services 5,549,148 5,370,876 ($178,272) -3.2% Insurance&Risk Management Fund 2,177,139 2,246,469 $69,329 3.2% Governmental Immunity Fund 900,000 900,000 $0 0.0% Street Lighting Special Assessment Districts 117,963 124,506 $6,543 5.5% Total Transfers $ 36,617,380 $ 25,355,035 $ (11,262,345) -30.8% TOTAL $ 44,937,183 $ 33,652,699 $ (11,284,484) -25.1% 2 Description of selected proposed Non-Departmental appropriations: C. 1. Accounting System Maintenance Agreement($35,465 increase)-The City has traditionally accounted for the maintenance agreement on the accounting system within the Non- Departmental budget under the assumption that the system benefits all departments. The FY 2011 budget request of$117,211 represents a 43.4%increase from FY 2010,largely due to costs to upgrade the IFAS system to a web-based system. 2. Animal Control Services contract(No budget change) -Salt Lake County has been providing animal control services to Salt Lake City for several years by contract. The Council adopted a legislative intent in conjunction with the FY 2008 budget as follows: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore the cost effectiveness of the Salt Lake Police Department providing dispatch services for the City's animal service calls. This would include providing the cost of additional dispatch personnel, if necessary, the costs associated with reprogramming radios,and allowing County animal service personnel access to the City's CAD system,etc. The Administration should explore the willingness of the County to allow City dispatching of County employees in this limited situation. As an alternative, the Administration could review with Salt Lake County the allocation of dispatch costs to assure that it is accurate." The Administrations' response in FY 2009 was as follows: The Administration has explored the willingness of Salt Lake County to allow City dispatching of Salt Lake County Animal Services employees.Salt Lake County provides animal services to three other cities,the University of Utah and unincorporated Salt Lake County.Salt Lake County gym.. is willing to enter into discussion about the possibility of Salt Lake City Corporation dispatching Animal Services employees provided that the City is willing to dispatch all animal services calls, including those for the County as well as the other contract cities.Salt Lake County does not wish to dispatch Animal Services officers using multiple dispatch services.In addition,the Administration has reviewed the allocation of dispatch costs with Animal Services as well as with the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office. 3. Arts Council(No on-going budget change)-The Non-Departmental budget includes$300,000 for the Salt Lake Arts Council. The chart below shows the history of funding for the Arts Council (since FY 2008). The proposed on-going budget for FY 2011 is flat from the on-going budget approved for FY 2010 (although one-time grant funds were approved in FY 2010). Salaries of the Arts Council employees are separately budgeted within the Department of Community Development. Salt Lake Arts Council Funding History One-time Grants On-going ; Funding FY 2011* $ 300,000 FY 2010 $ 300,000 ° $ 36,000 FY 2009 $ 336,000 FY 2008 $ 243,600 - $ 75,000 *Proposed 4. Eco-pass program($155,179) -The City purchases a number of eco-passes offered by UTA,to encourage the use of mass transit,and offers them at no charge to City employees. The Mayor's proposed budget includes funds in the non-departmental budget for the City's eco-passes,which currently allow City employees to ride for free on TRAX,UTA buses,and Front-runner. Because of an agreement previously negotiated with UTA relating to the TRAX extension project to the 3 Intermodal Hub,the FY 2011 budget amount is lower than expected-the City has been allowed to carry over an additional$139,000 in"credits"with UTA from FY 2010. Therefore in FY 2012, the cost of the program will increase. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to track the number of employees who use these passes,for future reference. 5. Transfer to CIP- The total amount proposed to be transferred to CIP is $12,713,185 (6.9%). In FY 2010, 7% was transferred to CIP (although the amount was higher due to higher overall general fund revenue). Of the amount recommended to be transferred for FY 2011, it should be noted that$6,011,858 is pledged for Sales-Tax debt-service related expenses (GO Bonds are proposed to be handled separately, see below). This leaves $6.6 million available for the Council to allocate to "pay as you go" projects (compared to $6.7 million available for projects in FY 2010, and $7.2 million n 2009), which given the Mayor's funding priorities, would pay for 25 out of 80 CIP applications. In addition, there are $2.8 million in Class C funds available, and $3.2 million in Impact Fee funds available (the Administration has identified specific projects eligible for these funds). a) Change in GO Debt Service Accounting - The Administration is proposing to handle GO Bond Revenue and Debt Service in a different way than in previous years. This is due to the large budgets that will be shown for the Public Safety Building project, potentially in FY 2011, as well as the upcoming Leonardo and Regional Sports Complex bonds. Instead of using the General Fund as a "pass through" as in recent years (where GO Debt is shown as both General Fund Revenue and expense), it will instead be allocated directly to the Debt Service Fund (a legally-separate fund from the General Fund), which will handle the payment of each debt. The Council may wish to continue the practice of reviewing these GO Bond projects (and amounts) in conjunction with the overall CIP budget. b) The Mayor and the CDCIP Board have reviewed all funding applications and made recommendations. The full list of CIP applications and Mayor's recommendations are attached to this staff report (legal sized paper). The Council will receive an in depth briefing regarding the CIP funding applications at the beginning of June. In the past the Council has agreed to fund time-sensitive project at this point. However, recently some Council Members have voiced concern that this ties the hands of the Council later on in the funding allocation process, as some funds have already been spent. The Council may wish to discuss allocating funds for all CIP projects in June, or waiting to discuss all CIP projects later in the year. The Council may also with to inquire about previously-identified time-sensitive projects, and if they were completed prior to when other CIP allocations were finalized. c) Not including Debt Service, Class C, or Impact Fees, the City received 80 applications for CIP projects totaling almost $28 million. Of this, 25 projects totaling $6.6 million were able to be funded (the first 25 projects in the attached CIP log). d) Class C Funds - The Mayor and CDCIP Board used a more traditional approach for allocation of Class C funds than was used last year, by keeping them in a separate category from the rest of the CIP Projects. The Council may wish to consider allocating these funds to some of the Class C eligible projects in the overall CIP list, or discussing both lists concurrently. e) Items not yet included in the CIP that will likely be included next year or in FY 2013, are Sales Tax Bonds for the North Temple Viaduct ($16.3 million - for which there may be offsetting revenue from the newly-created CDA) as well as Sales Tax Bonds for the North Temple Boulevard reconstruction ($10.1 million). The maximum total debt service for these two bond 4 issuances is estimated to be $1.1 million for the Viaduct (25 year term - could be less depending on offsetting revenue, and may be reimbursed totally), and $776,449 for the Boulevard (20 year term), for a total of $1.9 million per year. f) The CIP 10 Year Plan had anticipated the allocation of$14.2 million for "pay as you go" projects in FY 2011. g) If the Council wished to achieve 7.95% of general fund revenue, an additional $1.9 million would need to be added. If the Council wished to achieve the previous goal of 9% of general fund revenue, an additional $3.8 million would need to be added. 6. Civic opportunities fund (First Night) ($15,000) - The proposed $15,000 budget is for the First Night celebration. The City's contribution assists the Downtown Alliance to help with the funding of the First Night celebration. This same amount was requested last year. 7. Special Events ($150,000-on-going) -The Administration's proposed budget includes continuing funding of$150,000 for the special events fund(established as a part of the FY 2010 budget). This fund will be used to help events locating within Salt Lake City to defray the costs that the City charges for services. The Administration has previously reviewed the application/approval process with the Council, and received the Council's consent. The Council may wish to re- evaluate the criteria for this process now that the City has one year of history with the fund. Council Staff has asked for a list of organizations that have received funds from the FY 2010 appropriation. This list will be available in time for the Council's briefing. 8. Community Emergency Winter Housing($500 increase) -Salt Lake City's share of the operating costs of the winter overflow shelter located in Midvale is based upon population. The proposed ~ ' request for FY 2010 is$75,030,which is a 0.7%increase over FY 2010. The cost is$20.00 per night per individual for approximately 3,400 individuals. 9. Demographer Contract($30,000-one-time-new item)-The Administration is proposing to add a$30,000 one-time allocation to pay for a contract Demographer,to help analyze the results of the current federal Census effort in order to maximize the City's opportunities for funding. This request is a result of a discussion held by the Council relating to the Census. 10. Economic Development Corporation of Utah($24,992 decrease) -In 1997,the total municipal funding of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU)was assessed based 50% on population and 50% on certain revenues (sales tax,franchise&utility tax,licenses&permits,and other fees). Salt Lake City's contribution was calculated to be$126,659 in 1997. This amount remained unchanged until 2000 when all assessments increased 5%,to$132,992. The Administration has negotiated a lower amount for FY 2011,for a total cost of$108,000. 11. Fleet Replacement($370,381 decrease)-The proposed budget for Fleet replacement is proposed to decrease this year from$4,370,381 to$4,000,000 (8.5%decrease) -although when considered in context of FY 2010's one-time reductions (totaling$865,000),it is actually a$1.24 million reduction to what the overall Fleet Budget would have been in FY 2010. The resulting shortfall in the Fleet Fund will be addressed by a draw from Fleet's reserves. The Council will receive a detailed briefing on the Fleet Division budget at the May 25th work session. 12. Gang Prevention($70,000) -The Administration is proposing to continue an initiative introduced c in the FY 2010 budget. With this appropriation the Administration funds a contract employee to work on a personal level in neighborhoods affected by gang violence,and connect people in need to services and programs through the City's recently formed Gang Intervention Community Action Team. The federal government has develop a"Comprehensive Gang Model" to help 5 communities address issues associated with gangs,and the community outreach worker is identified as an essential component to this model. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for more information about the program's first year in operation. 13. Geographic Information System(GIS)Support($5,000 decrease) -Each year,beginning in 1997,the Non-Departmental budget has included funding for equipment to help with additional GIS applications or implementation. For FY 2011,the Administration is proposing funding of $30,000,a$5,000 decrease from prior years.In FY 2009,the Council funded a one-time purchase of software ($50,000) to help the GIS system with cleaning up addresses (to help avoid significant amounts of returned mail). The Council may wish to ask the Administration if this software has been implemented and if it is successful. 14. Gifts and Receptions ($15,000)-This appropriation pays for receptions including the Mayor's holiday luncheon for City employees,as well as gifts presented by the Mayor to visiting dignitaries. In previous years any funds remaining were also used to pay for the induction ceremony. However,in FY 2010,no funds remained at the time of the induction Ceremony. Therefore the Administration is proposing a separate line item to account for induction-related expenses (see item 22). The Council may wish to note that this fund has never fully covered the expenses for both the holiday luncheon and the induction as well as the gifts provided by the Mayor. Gifts to visiting dignitaries from the City Council have been paid through the City Council Office budget. 15. Governmental Immunity Fund($900,000)-The City's Governmental Immunity and provides for protection against unfounded claims of liability and for payment of legitimate claims. Net assets in the Governmental Immunity Fund have increased over the past four years. As noted in Council discussions,the funding available is not consistent with the level that would be recommended in the private sector,given the level of exposure. The fallback funding source is the general fund balance. A separate property tax levy is also an option for the Council to consider. In FY 2010,the general fund contribution towards this fund was decreased by$100,000 (a 10% decrease),to bring the total amount funded to$900,000. The Administration is proposing to keep the transfer at this level($900,000). The Council may wish to note that in FY 2008, the transfer to Governmental Immunity was$1.15 million. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an analysis of the City's exposure given these budget reductions, in terms of claims liability. 16. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce ($1,500) -In fiscal year 2003,the City joined the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce as a dues paying member. The appropriation is proposed to continue this year at$1,500. It has remained at this amount since the City began paying dues. 17. Housing Authority Transitional Housing($57,500 decrease) -The proposed budget includes a payment to the Housing Authority of$70,000,which a$57,500 decrease from the amount appropriated in FY 2010. Each year the City takes the amount that the Housing Authority paid the city in lieu of paying property taxes (PILOT),and transfers it back to the housing authority. Federal regulations allow housing authorities to make payments from federal funds to cities in lieu of property taxes. The City has traditionally transferred the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) back to the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has sold a number of properties in recent years, and both the PILOT revenue and expense from non-departmental reflect that. The Council may wish to discuss this practice in the context of the current budget situation. 18. Information Management Services Fund ($178,272 decrease in transfer from general fund) -The City's Information Management Services (IMS) Division maintains the City computer infrastructure. The General Fund's portion of major systems is funded by a direct transfer from the General Fund. A$5,370,836 transfer is proposed for FY 2011,which is a 3.2% decrease compared to FY 2010. City departments are charged for computer maintenance (set fee per 6 computer),for discretionary computer support services not covered by the maintenance agreement,and for telephone services. Council staff will brief the Council on the IMS Fund in detail on June 1,providing the Council with information about IMS activities in the coming year. The Council may wish to consider the implications of reducing the transfer to this fund at a time when reliance on technology resources is increasing. 19. Insurance&Risk Management Fund($69,329 increase) -The General Fund's share of fire insurance and administrative costs for the Insurance&Risk Management Fund is increasing by $69,329 or 3.2%,for a total amount of$2,246,468. Council staff will prepare a separate report on Insurance and Risk Management, to be briefed at the Council's May 25th work session. 20. Jordan River Implementation- ($14,000-one-time-new item) -The Administration is proposing to add a one-time allocation to the Jordan River Commission,for$14,000. This is a placeholder for Salt Lake City's yearly cost for the administration of the Jordan River Commission,which has been formed as a result of the Blueprint Jordan River Plan. The Council may wish to ask for more information on the operating budget of the Commission before committing funds. o The Jordan River Commission is a 30-member intergovernmental panel that will review building proposals and raise money to restore wetlands,enhance recreation,and buy 3,800 acres of private land that remain along the Jordan River. The Commission would operate on a$200,000+budget,which would be funded by members based on their population,land area,and river frontage. o The Council may wish to ask if$14,000 is the maximum the City will pay,or if this amount will increase as operational costs increase. o The Council may also wish to consider that this money is proposed to go towards staff and not towards capital projects along the river(which the Commission may also ask the City to contribute towards). 21. Legal Defenders ($18,105 decrease) -The City is required to provide legal counsel for indigent defendants where jail time is a possibility. The City contracts this responsibility to Salt Lake Legal Defenders(LDA) at a proposed cost of$831,071 for fiscal year 2011. This is a 2.1% decrease from FY 2010. The following is background information relating to this program: o According to the Administration,the City is legally obligated to provide"adequate costs of defense for persons charged with a public offense who are determined by the court to be indigent under Title 77,Chapter 32". Further,the U.S.Supreme Court in Alabama v. Shelton requires appointment of counsel for any jailable offense. o In previous years the LDA has requested increases,even while the City's budget is decreasing. Previous research conducted by the Administration has indicated that there are no legal requirements to give the requested increases. The LDA would determine based on their caseload if they are able to perform this service on behalf of the City. If they determine that they cannot perform with the contract price,the Administration would void the contract and have to find another vendor,which could lead to a higher price per case,and an increase in funding,than if the request is granted to the LDA's Office. 22. Legislative Support($20,000 new item) -The Administration has agreed to include this line item to cover the City's costs relating to City Council legislative activities that have City-wide implications. The City's sponsorship of the Utah League of Cities and Towns annual conference in Salt Lake City,Sister City expenses (gifts,receptions,meals),as well as induction ceremony expenses in election years would be covered by this line item. C23. Local First ($15,000-one-time) -The Administration is proposing a one-time allocation of$15,000 to support the Local First program. The Council also approved one-time funding for Local First during the FY 2008,2009 and 2010 budgets. However,the amount in each of these previous 7 years has been$20,000. Local first is a non-profit organization"dedicated to strengthening communities and local economies by promoting,preserving,and protecting local,independently owned businesses throughout Utah." It was founded in 1995,and has a criteria that a business must be at least 51%locally owned to qualify for membership. 24. Local lobbyist($25,000) -The Administration is proposing to increase the budget from FY 2010 for a local lobbyist by$5,000,for a total of$25,000. The Administration has augmented the City's contracted lobbying efforts with in-house legislative staff. The Administration has indicated that as special lobbying needs arise,funds may be sought for outside support on a case-by-case basis. The Council may wish to evaluate this further. If funds are needed with short notice, they may not coincide with a scheduled budget amendment. The Council may also wish to confirm past practice, that the Council reviews all legislative tracking items. 25. Music Licensing($7,000 new item) -The City has been notified by certain recording agencies that we must obtain music licenses for the music that is played while on hold on the City's phone system,in between breaks on Channel 17,or as background music to other programming on Channel 17. The Council may wish to consider eliminating music in these cases in order to avoid this cost. 26. National League of Cities ($11,535) -The Mayor's Recommended Budget recommends funding Salt Lake City's support of the National League of Cities and Towns,for a total amount of $11,535. The dues are based on a formula,based on City population. Dues remain unchanged from FY 2010. 27. No More Homeless Pets-Feral Cat Initiative($20,000-one-time) -The Mayor's proposed budget includes a one-time allocation of$20,000 for No More Homeless Pets to continue the feral cat trap,spay, and neuter program. The Council also approved this amount in FY 2009 and FY 2010 as one-time allocations. 28. Non-CDBG mailings ($6,000) -The Mayor's Office mails community council newsletters and agendas to those residents registered with community councils. Community Development Block Grant funding is available to offset the cost of mailings in CDBG eligible areas. Several years ago,the Council added$6,000 for mailings in non-eligible areas. 29. Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Follow-up ($100,000-one-time) -The Administration is recommending$100,000 of one-time funding for any follow up and public process relating to the Northwest Quadrant area. This request is included in the Non-Departmental budget. At the Council's Community and Economic Development budget briefing,Council Members had a number of questions about the exact process that this funding will provide. The Administration has provided a written briefing for the Council on this issue (see memo attached). 30. Retirement payments ($693,899) -The Mayor is proposing to budget$500,000 of general fund monies in anticipation of employees retiring,which is a reduction of$193,899 (27.9%) from FY 2010. Before FY 2009,the City had funded retirements in the amount of$750,000 per year. The Administration indicates that due to the early retirement incentive pursued during FY 2009 and FY 2010 (to achieve budget reductions),the Administration does not anticipate as many retirements in the current year. These funds are available to departments on a first-come,first- serve basis and are usually not adequate to cover 100% of the payments to retirees. Some departments cover retirees' cash payments by leaving positions vacant or by using savings within their department. Any unspent amount will be transferred to a separate account to accumulate for the expected increases in future years. The Council may wish to ask the Administration the status of any current figures on expected employee retirement rates,and what affect this will have on the City's budget. 31. Sales Tax Rebates ($15,000 decrease) -The City is contractually obligated for sales tax rebates relating to incentives for two retail businesses-Fred Meyer (Smith's Marketplace) and 8 Sutherlands on North Temple. The Mayor's proposed budget includes a decrease of$15,000 for this purpose,bringing the total proposed budget for FY 2011 to$150,000. This is due to the actual sales tax revenue experienced by one of these businesses,that has met the criteria for an increase in the rebate. The criteria are evaluated and confirmed by the City's Finance Division annually. 32. Sales Tax Rebate for Kamatsu($30,000-one-time-new item)-The Administration is proposing a one-time business incentive payment to Kamatsu,a company that sells construction and manufacturing equipment. The company was considering relocating,and this funding was offered to them in exchange for staying in Salt Lake City and purchasing construction material in the City. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion regarding Economic Development incentives, and which approaches and/or funds the Council is comfortable with offering,and what criteria a company might need to meet in order to receive an offer. Previous Councils have indicated that Sales Tax Rebates should no longer pursued as a form of Economic Development. The Council may also wish to request that the Administration receive approval from a majority of the Council in advance of any economic development incentive offer. 33. Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce($50,000) -The Administration requests$50,000 for membership dues for FY 2010,which is the same amount that has been charged since FY 2008. 34. Salt Lake Council of Governments (COG) ($21,746) -The Salt Lake Council of Governments includes Salt Lake County representatives and representatives from cities in the county. The FY 2011 appropriation for COG is$21,746,which represents a$1,444 (6.2%) decrease from FY 2010. In FY 2010 Salt Lake City's portion of the total budget for COG is 27.3%. 35. Salt Lake Valley Conference of Mayors($225) -During the mid 1990s,mayors in Salt Lake County began to meet together to discuss strategies to compel the County to eliminate double taxation and address other issues. Dues of$175 began in 1997-98,and increased to$225 a number of years ago. The request for$225 is the same amount as was budgeted in FY 2010. 36. Salt Lake Solutions ($52,000)-The Council appropriated$52,000 in one-time money in conjunction with the FY 2009 budget to support a contract for a consultant to develop the Salt Lake Solutions Program,and funding was appropriated again in FY 2010 for this purpose. The Administration is proposing to fund this contract again in FY 2011. 37. Sister Cities ($10,000)-Salt Lake City has established Sister City relationships with several cites in other countries. Since the adoption of Salt Lake City's first sister city,Matsumoto,Japan in 1958,Salt Lake City's program has expanded to include five additional sister cities and two friendship cities. The six sister cities include:Matsumoto,Japan(1958);Quezon City,Philippines (1960);Oruro,Bolivia (1977);Keelung,Taiwan(1979);Chernivtsi,Ukraine (1989);and Thurles Town,Ireland(2000). The two friendship cities include Yinchuan,P.R.China (2003) and Torino, Italy(2003). Friendship city relationships may be promoted to sister city status following a successful assessment period of several years. The goal of the Salt Lake Sister Cities Program is to promote peace and unite local and global communities through friendship,economic opportunities and cultural and educational exchanges. City elected officials sometimes attend functions hosted by local organizations in honor of the Sister City guests,present welcoming gifts to visiting dignitaries,arrange for tours of the City&County Building,etc. The Mayor's Recommended Budget proposes no increase to this budget of$10,000. Prior to FY 2008,this budget had been$7,000 (the Mayor and Council increased the appropriation). 38. Street lighting electrical power ($400,000 decrease) -The electricity budget for general street lighting,excluding special improvement lighting district electrical costs,is budgeted within Non- Departmental.The total costs City-wide for FY 2010 were$1,475,000 million. For FY 2011,the Administration is proposing to delay repair of mid-block street lights (acknowledging that there will be times when streetlights will not be operational),in order to achieve electricity savings of $400,000 (a 27.1% decrease from FY 2010). The Council may wish to ask the Administration if 9 certain areas will be exempt from this approach given the high volume of pedestrian activity (for example,the Downtown or Sugarhouse Business District). The Council may wish to ask the Administration if savings can be expected in future years with the implementation of projects funded with the recently-approved Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. 39. Street Lighting Special Assessment Fund ($6,543 increase)-The City pays 25% of street lighting costs of special districts since the City would have provided some lighting within districts. The General Fund's total share of district costs is projected to be$124,506 which is 5.5% more than budgeted in FY 2010. 40. Sugar House Park Authority($172,184) -The City and County share equally the costs of operating the Sugar House Park. Funding is passed to the Sugar House Park Authority (SHPA), who operates and maintains the park. The budget for this purpose has remained flat since FY 2009. The Administration is proposing to reduce the allocation to SHPA by$18,000 (a 9.5% decrease),to reflect the current budget realities in other City Parks. The Administration indicates that they have let the SHPA know about this possible reduction. The Council may wish to ask SL County if their appropriation for FY 2011 is also reducing and consider the City's portion of the reduction in that context. 41. Tax &Revenue Anticipation Notes ($420,000; $35,000 cost of issuance)-The proposed budget includes$420,000 for interest on tax and revenue anticipation notes and$35,000 for issuance costs. The interest on the notes has decreased significantly over the years (from$720,167 in FY 2009),and is decreasing by$43,125 from FY 2010. As is customary,each year the City Treasurer borrows funds to help support General Fund operations until property taxes are received. Cost of issuance is also a placeholder before final/actual costs are determined(usually less than budgeted). In FY 2009 the actual cost of issuance was$25,491. Additional information regarding this item can be provided upon request. 42. Tracy Aviary($25,000 decrease) -The Administration is recommending a$25,000 decrease in the City's contribution to the Tracy Aviary,bringing the total contribution to$425,000. The City provides funding for the Aviary in the Non-Departmental budget to assist with on-going expenses. Capital Projects at and adjacent to the Aviary have been funded in previous years separately,through the City's CIP budget. The chart below shows the City's recent Non- Departmental funding history for the Aviary. The City has been providing a financial contribution to the Aviary for over 12 years,in addition to assisting in small capital projects. Tracy Aviary Funding History FY 2011* $ 425,000 FY 2010 $ 450,000 FY 2009 $ 500,000 FY 2008 $ 500,000 FY 2007 $ 250,000 *Proposed 43. Tuition aid program($85,000) -With prior approval,Salt Lake City reimburses employees 70% of tuition paid to an accredited institution for job related classes taken for credit on employees' own time up to a maximum of$2,000 per employee per calendar year. The reimbursement percentage for career development classes is reduced to 50%. Employees must submit receipts and grades prior to reimbursement. The City reimburses only for grades of C or better. If an employee leaves City employment within one year of receiving payment for tuition, the tuition payment is withhold from the employee's last paycheck. The proposed budget is $85,000, which is the same as last year's request. 44. Twilight Concert Series ($15,000 - one time - new item) - The Administration is proposing to allocate $15,000 (on a one-time basis) to the Twilight Concert series, to help offset additional costs 10 relating to the series' required move to Pioneer Park from the Gallivan Center (while the City is renovating the Gallivan Center). In prior years, the City has not provided direct funding to the Twilight Concert Series specifically, but funding for the Arts Council (item X), has been used CLtowards this purpose. The following is additional information on the Twilight Concert Series: o Each year the Twilight Concert series breaks even (revenues equal expenditures). In FY 2010, this amount was $578,600 (revenues and expenses), with 15,000 average attendees per concert. o The Arts Council secures most of the funding through sponsorships and donated media, etc, although some of the Arts Council Non-Departmental allocation has been used in previous years. o In FY 2010, Arts Council Staff estimates that approximately $65,000 of the Non- Departmental allocation went to help with costs associated with the Twilight Concert series. Because the concert is free of charge, it is fair to say that the City subsidizes this program in the amount $4.33 per attendee. For FY 2011 (Non-Departmental general allocation plus the one-time allocation),the subsidy would amount to$5.33 per attendee. 45. Unemployment Costs- ($166,860-one-time-new item)-The Administration is proposing to allocate$166,860 to cover unemployment costs(relating to layoffs) that would have otherwise been absorbed by Departments. Departments typically absorb these costs by holding positions open and using vacancy savings. 46. U.S. Conference of Mayors($12,609)-The City participates in the US Conference of Mayors Organization. The Administration is recommending payment for dues be the same as FY 2010 ($12,609). 47. Utah League of Cities&Towns ($117,869)-The Mayor's proposed budget recommends keeping Salt Lake City's support of the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT)in the amount of C: $117,869. There is no proposed increase over last fiscal year's allocation,as the ULCT did not request a dues increase.The dues are derived using a formula taking into account assessed value of properties and sales tax revenues. The ULCT has kept the dues amount flat despite the formula dictating a small increase in dues. 48. Washington DC consultant ($60,000) - The Administration is proposing to continue to fund a Washington DC consultant, at the same level funded in FY 2010. In FY 2006, the Council made the appropriation contingent upon the Council's approval of the items to be lobbied. The Council may wish to consider continuing this legislative intent, so that the Council may review and approve items to be lobbied at the national level. 49. Weigand Center($60,000) -The Administration is proposing to reduce the contribution to the Weigand Center from$80,000 in FY 2010 to$60,000 (a decrease of 25%). The Weigand Center first received a contribution from the City in FY 2010. C 11 tie.4CEIVEDMAY132OIO 1.149 ts. M, MAY 052010 RALPH BECKER MU I @�: Yjai �•�� 1RMAYOR By OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SCANNED BY:1z1 DATE: f)07b I 11 Date Received:3Mt2-01 fl David ' eritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: �j16121910 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 5, 2010 JT Martin, Chair FROM: David Everitt SUBJECT: Northwest Quadrant Planning Process STAFF CONTACT: David Everitt, x7732 DOCUMENT TYPE: Communication to the Council, for discussion purposes only RECOMMENDATION: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: An appropriation is recommended as part of the Mayor's Recommended Budget for FY2011. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2009, after nearly 3 years of preparation by the Planning Division and a team of environmental and land use planning consultants, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. Mayor Becker supports both the planning process to date as well as the principles that undergird the draft Plan. During the planning process, various stakeholders have recently raised two issues requiring additional attention. First, questions remain about how to implement the draft Plan's various elements. For example, the draft Plan states that [t]he future Airport Light Rail Transit line(LRT)extension should be considered as an additional opportunity for the area, and is also currently undergoing an EIS.This TRAX line could be extended from the airport through the International Center and into the identified Town Center of the Northwest Quadrant.' How will this extension be funded? What is the timeframe for doing so? And will the construction of light rail be a concurrent requirement of development? Similar questions exist for 1 Page 6,Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Draft Master Plan,(2009).See http://www.slcgov.com/CED/planning/pages/090909_NWQ_MasterPlan_PCRecommendation_V2.pdf 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com many of the other elements of the draft Plan. Without a roadmap detailing how to implement them, this Plan (as with any master plan)may very well be marginalized or ignored completely. The second set of questions is with regard to the underlying suitability of the Northwest Quadrant from an environmental and sustainability perspective. For example, residents have expressed the concern that insufficient attention has been paid to impacts on wetlands, wildlife habitat, and whether liquefaction, airport noise, and alkaline soils would impair residential and commercial uses. Because the draft Plan is an extensive document, with many facets and details that are not easily communicated in sound bites, and because it is a Plan of regional significance, it warrants a larger public education and review effort. Accordingly,the Mayor proposes the development of a Master Plan Evaluation and Implementation Strategy that would be completed prior to the Council's consideration of the proposed Master Plan. The Strategy would a) supplement the Master Plan by identifying specific strategies and tasks necessary to implement the plan's elements, and b) solicit and respond to public oral and written comments regarding the Plan. The public comment process would result in a more comprehensive effort to dialogue with interested stakeholders about the Plan as currently proposed. It is possible that the Mayor's recommendation may deviate materially from the current draft Plan, based on the input of the interested stakeholders and experts. To do this, the Administration will create a scoping document that lists the aspects of the Plan that require an implementation strategy along with a) an estimate of the timeframe for completion, b) funding required, and c) specifics on how subject matter experts will be utilized. The scoping document will also provide the Council with a plan to solicit and respond to public comment, and to obtain an evaluation of the public comments and responses from qualified experts. The Administration is committed to fully developing the strategies necessary to implement the elements of the draft Plan and solicit public comment so that the Council will have a complete understanding of the investment required to actualize the Plan if adopted, along with the risks and benefits associated with adoption of the Plan. The Master Plan Evaluation and Implementation Strategy will require additional time and funds to implement2, but will provide the Council with more information from which to make an informed decision. Ultimately, the Council should expect from the Administration two things: 1) a recommendation to adopt the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan as currently written, adopt the Master Plan with revisions, or deny approval of the Master Plan; and 2) if adoption is recommended, a companion Implementation Strategy for the Plan. 2 The Mayor's recommended budget for FY11 includes one-time funds for these efforts. 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 18,2010 BUDGET FOR: FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director cc: David Everitt,Chief Cook,John Vuyk,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen The proposed fiscal year 2010-11 budget for the Fire Department is$33,362,538. This represents an increase of$800,763(2.5%increase from fiscal year 2009-10). FIRE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2010-11 Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Explanation of 2009-10 2010-11 Change Change Office of the Chief $ 1,969,922 $ 1,678,925 $ (290,997) -14.4% Capital!more vement (including financial management, Reduction payroll,purchasing,inventory, Transfer PPE Expenses to research,human resource Training management,facility maintenance) NewFTE-Admin Assistant Operations 24,501,367 25,003,553 $ 502,186 2.0% Salary and Step (includng airport operations) Increases Communications 1,814,118 2,030,734 $ 216,616 11.7% Salary and Step Increases (dispatch,equipment maintenance& Payroll System repair,technical support,records Maintenance Increase management) Training&Apparatus Division 2,388,327 2,557,032 $ 168,705 6.8% Salary and Step Increases (including managing fleet acquisitions,maintenance and PPE Expenof Transfer q from Office of the Chief supplies activities,CENT f unction, Haz mat/Spec ial Operations) Fire Prevention 1,097,436 1,286,556 $ 189,120 16.3% Salary and Step Increases (business inspections,hazardous materials permits,new construction, special events,community training, public education) Emergency Medical Services 790,606 805,738 $ 15,132 1.7% (including medical training, certification,quality assurance) Total $32,561,776 $33,362,5381 $ 800,762 2.5% POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. Position Vacancies- (total savings of$691,600-salaries, benefits and equipment) 1. The SLCFD is proposing to continue holding 11 FTEs vacant(savings of$576,928), pending notification of the SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) grant,which may allow the City to hire these positions. Initial feedback from the grant application is that we may be able to hire as many as nine (9) FTEs. The SLCFD has not yet received a final award indication. 2. The SLCFD is also proposing to hold an additional three (3) FTEs vacant until January,for a savings of$78,672. 3. The SLCFD is also proposing to reduce Personal Protection Equipment(PPE)for new hires,since hiring will be limited($36,000 savings). ➢ The Council may wish to consider the implication these vacancies will have on the department's overall overtime expenditures. For a more detailed discussion on overtime, see Matter At Issue K. B. Position Addition-The Administration is proposing to add an Administrative Assistant to the Office of the Fire Chief($40,000-includes salary and benefits). C. Merit increases and restoration of 1.5% pay suspension-$754,910 increase-The Administration is proposing to restore the 1.5% pay suspension that all City employees received last year. The Administration is also proposing to award merit increases that were due to some SLCFD employees in FY 2010 (note:Merit increases due for FY 2011 will not be awarded). D. Pension Changes-$1,155,911 increase-The Utah State Pension fund lost a significant amount of money in the recent economic contraction. The Utah State Retirement System (URS) calculates the rates that the City must pay into the system in order to fund future retirement needs. Salt Lake City does cannot determine or adjust these rates. Currently the City is paying 35.71% of base salary for sworn police officers,which is increasing to 36.31% for FY 2011. For fire fighters,the City currently pays 9.68%,which will increase to 16.18%. For the Fire Department FY 2011 budget,this translates into a$1,155,911 increase that the City must fund. E. Fuel Savings-$30,000 decrease-The Administration is recommending reducing the Fire Department Fuel and maintenance budget by$30,000 as a result of fuel conservation efforts. This represents a 2.5% reduction in the department's fuel and fleet maintenance budget. ➢ The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the budget projections allow for fluctuation in fuel prices. F. Reduce Capital Expenditures-$50,000 decrease-The Administration is proposing to reduce capital expenditures by$50,000. This will delay the repair of heating and cooling systems at Fire Station#2,and water supply issues at Fire Station#3. ➢ The Council may wish to consider the potential for increased utilities costs in the interim if these repairs are delayed. G. Reallocate Radio Expenses from Police-$33,000 increase-Since the City has gone to a single City-wide radio system,the Police and Fire Departments have agreed to share the costs of the system. As a result,$33,000 in costs are shifting from Police to Fire. H. Reduce Budget for Physicals,Gym Memberships,Cash Conversion-$10,000 decrease-The Administration is proposing to reduce this line item in the budget-relating to gym memberships,physicals and cash conversions. This decrease will bring the budget closer in line with actual expenditures. 2 I. Annual payroll system maintenance cost-$21,000 increase-The Fire Department recently installed a new payroll system to increase staffing/tracking efficiency. The annual maintenance agreement for this new system is$21,000. J. Summary of Budget Changes- The following chart is a list of the budget changes and the various amounts attributable to those changes: ;Fire Department Proposed Budget Changes- FY 2010-11 Relating to Staffing Base to Base adjustment $ (487,215)1 Pension rate changes $ 1,155,911 Insurance rate changes $ 99,472 Restore 1.5%and FY 2010 Merit Increases $ 754,910 Add Administrative Assistant to Fire Chief(Salary&Benefits) - $ 40,000 Hold 11 vacancies throughout the year $ (576,928) Hold 3 vacancies through January $ (78,672)! Reduce PPE Funding for new recruits due to limited hiring $ (36,000) Other Reduce Capital Expenditures at Fire Stations $ (50,000)i Reallocate radio expenses from police ' $ 33,000 Reduce budget for gym memberships,physicals to reflect ac, $ (10,000) Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Reduction $ (30,000)1 Payroll Software Maintenance Agreement $ 21,000 adjust base for FY 2010 one-time expenses $ (34,716) K. HazMat Restructuring/Overtime costs-In March of 2010,the Fire Department restructured how it delivers HazMat service in the City, in order to maximize the number of employees available throughout the City on a given day, and address both four-handed staffing and response time issues. The staffing goal of the Fire Department, in order to meet these issues, is 75 firefighters each day. The Department indicates that it is too early to completely judge the success of this program two months into implementation. There have been other staffing impacts (such as additional HazMat training for certain team members, and a number of unplanned illnesses), that have reduced the available force, causing the department to rely on overtime. In spite of these challenges, the Department has been able to maintain four handed staffing levels without"browning out" a station,as well as stay within the given budget for overtime. > The Council may wish to ask for a report from the Fire Department at a later date as to the operational and budgetary experience of the restructuring HazMat delivery. > The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Fire Department about the Department's approach when short-staffed - does the SLCFD intend either "brown out" a station and reduce service to a section of the City,or potentially run an apparatus with fewer than four fire fighters. L. Retirement - The Fire Department continues to face challenges planning for and anticipating employee retirement. Current union contract specifies that two weeks of notice are necessary for a firefighter to retire. As a result, the lag time between a retirement of a firefighter and the hiring of a new class can leave the department with multiple vacancies. The Fire Department currently has 33 employees with at least 30 years,and an additional 41 employees with at least 20 years of service. The Council may wish to note that the Administration is reducing the Non-Departmental contribution towards retirement to 3 $500,000, potentially adding to the problem of having sufficient funds to cover retiring employees. ➢ The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they are planning to continue investigating some form of retirement incentive programs in order to better manage retirements, thereby assisting the department with four-handed crews. M. Other City Staffing changes/cuts with Fire Department Implications: 1. Community and Economic Development (CED) -The CED budget proposes eliminating a Fire Plan review position. The Fire Department indicates that at the time this position was proposed to be eliminated, the possibility of eventually sharing a single FTE between Fire and CED was discussed. However, no position like this was included in the Mayor's proposed budget. The Fire Department indicates that it does not have the capacity with existing staff to handle the plan review that would be generated with this position eliminated. Because CED is also planning to eliminate some plan review outsourcing money, significant outsourcing plan review is also not likely a viable option. >The Council may wish to consider restoring the position cut CED (or split between Fire and CED) in order to handle this workload, or restore the cut to outsourcing funds. >The Council may wish to request that the Administration return with a recommendation as to how to address this issue fully in the annual budget process, rather than leaving the potential for resolution in a mid-year budget opening. 2. Airport - The Airport budget proposes eliminating the Fire Marshal at the airport (vacant). The Fire Department is concerned that without proper attention at the Airport, compliance issues could end up not being adequately addressed. The Department assumes that the current Airport Fire Captains are acting as code enforcement,which may present issues of impartiality. The Fire Chief indicates that with current and future development at the Airport, a qualified independent Fire Marshal or equivalent is justified. Until a Fire Marshal position is added at the Airport, the SLCFD indicates that it will seek a mechanism to bill the Airport for any services provided by general fund employees. However, because the department is short-staffed as is,this could lead to fire code compliance issues at a major international airport. The Council may wish to discuss the implications of eliminating a Fire Marshal at the airport before approving the airport budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The SLCFD has provided statistics on total responses per apparatus,summarized in the table below, detail per apparatus provided in Attachment B. (Note: The statistics refer to "responses." In some cases more than one apparatus responded to the same call for service, but in the majority of cases a single SLCFD unit satisfied the call for service. The Fire Chief will provide more detailed information on Tuesday). 4 Summary of Total Responses-Calendar Years 2005-2008 %change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005-2008 Total Per Day Total Per Day Total Per Day Total Per Day Medical 20,142 55 21,172 58 22,144 61 21,890 60 9% Fire 5,298 15 5,424 15 6,047 17 5,830 16 10% Total 25,440 70 26,596 73 28,191 77 27,720 76 9% Key points from this information: • Total Medical responses increased 9% over the 2005-08 period,from an average of 55 per day to 60 per day. • Total Fire responses increased 10% over the 2005-08 period,from an average of 15 per day to 16 per day. • Total responses over the period increased 9%from an average of 70 responses per day to 76 per day. • The percentage of medical responses to fire responses over this period remained relatively constant,with medical responses representing approximately 79% of total responses. AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE BUDGET The Council initiated an audit of the Salt Lake City Fire Department, which was completed in May, 2005. The audit was discussed at a Council briefing on January 17,2006. Issues discussed included audit recommendations that SLCFD agrees can be implemented with little or no budget impact, as well as audit recommendations that would need additional appropriations. The Council asked the SLCFD to prioritize these audit recommendations and have basic cost estimates for implementation of those recommendations that are a priority to the department. 1. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Record Management System (RMS) - The Audit found the current system to be lacking. This item was partially funded in FY 2007. After further review the amount funded was not adequate to provide a system that would meet the department's needs. The department is continuing to work closely with IMS to find a satisfactory solution. 2. Fees: a. Fire Hazardous Materials Fees: The Fire Prevention Bureau currently collects fees for hazardous materials permits, tank permits,blasting permits,high rise permits,fireworks public display permits, temporary structure permits, health care facility inspections and day care inspections. A recent review of business license fees showed that the fee amounts were less than the costs. The Administration recommended fees be established based on size, difficulty, and the type of permit or inspection needed. The proposed ordinance established a fee schedule for open burning permits, flame effects permits, assembly permits, trade show permits, suppression, alarm or detection system installation permits,hot works operations permits and re-inspections. b. The following is a review of the specific audit recommendations relating to Fire Permit and inspection fees(The Council may wish to inquire as to the status of these fees): • #104 Institute fees for all permits(only 14 fees out of 47 permits). • #85 Establish fees for fire construction permits that are sufficient to cover the cost of the entire construction code enforcement function including fire plan review and fire construction inspection. 5 • #103 Fire construction permits with fees should be issued for the construction and renovation of permanent or temporary structures and for all fire protection systems(alarms,mains,standpipes,sprinklers,hood,etc.) • #105 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections for all operational code enforcement inspections. • #107 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections conducted by fire companies. • #108 Evaluate feasibility of building Services issuing all permits and collecting fees rather than the Fire Department. 3. Staffing Changes: (Note: Part of this section may have been implemented - staff will confirm exactly what has been implemented prior to Tuesday's briefing.) While the staffing changes within the fire department do not tie directly to the audit (a shift of 1 FTE), the proposed budget includes the addition of a Fire Inspection Plan Reviewer in the Community Development Department to assist the"one stop" counter. The Council may wish to ask the department that if the"1 stop" concept is funded, are there any operational efficiencies that could be realized by re-assigning the staff in the Fire Department that currently do plan review. Specifically,what functions will the two staff members who have been conducting the 400 plus plan reviews per year be assigned in the future; might there be opportunity to enhance other Fire programs that have been reduced in recent years? The following are audit recommendations directly relating to fire plan review and inspections: • #99 Require fire captains and/or battalion chiefs to become certified as fire inspectors so they can supervise company inspections. • #86 Contract with 1 or 1.5 civilian certified fire plan examiners(or private companies) to provide fire code plan checking services. (Staff Note: to an extent, this is accomplished with having a certified fire plans examiner in the Building Services and Licensing division at the"one stop shop") • #88 The hazardous material inspector should become certified as a fire inspector to allow greater flexibility in assignment, (Staff Note: The Fire Department indicates that this has been accomplished) • #91 .5 to 1 FM clerical position is needed to provide 5-10 hour day coverage for reception and phone duties, at a lower cost than having certified fire inspectors perform these duties. OTHER AUDIT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following section re-caps findings and recommendations from the audit report that relate directly to the budget, grouped in general categories. These recommendations, as well as the SLCFD responses, were presented to the Council in January 2006. This list is intended for background information purposes: 1. Recommendations relating to overtime/retirement management • #30 The Fire Department uses salary savings from vacant positions to supplement overtime costs, which can result in more overtime. There are times of 20 or more vacancies. Consider some overhire process. • #21 Design an incentive program to provide more notice of retirement. • #10 Explore alternative work schedules that could reduce the reliance on overtime • #11 Identify current trends in leave use and establish a smaller number of people allowed off each day on scheduled leave • #12 Implement incentives to reduce sick leave taken(reduce overtime) 6 • #14 and#115 Assign some basic cause and origin investigation to company officers rather than bring investigator in(overtime)for clear-cut cases • #161 Implement a sick leave reduction program to reduce overtime and provide some health insurance funding after retirement. 2. Recommendations relating to staffing changes: • #49 Staff Station 9 during peak hours only. • #48 In the next five years,move Station 9 further southeast to justify full-time operation with sufficient volume of calls. • #46 Add a 2-person Advanced Life Support(ALS)unit in the downtown area from 10 A.M.to 10 P.M. • #37 Continue using four-person staffing on all engines and trucks in the SLCFD. • #144 Fire communications center requires a total of 20 employees, but the center has only 16 employees.(Previous year's budget partially addressed this recommendation) • #47 Upgrade Engine 1 to advanced life support and downgrade Rescue Engine 4 to an engine to better address the distribution of EMS demand. • #55 Institute an officer rotation policy for all captains • #66 Consider adding a provision to its upcoming RFP for ambulance services that would include a single medical director for both the ambulance service provider and the fire department. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) • #81 Convert all employees except four (fire marshal and three sworn fire investigators) in the Fire Prevention Bureau to civilian positions through attrition. • #148 The radio technician position with the Fire Department should be consolidated into IMS Division. • #99 Require fire captains and/or battalion chiefs to become certified as fire inspectors so they can supervise company inspections. • #110 The deputy fire marshal (captain) over investigations should be a working captain active in fire investigations. • #86 Contract with 1 or 1.5 civilian certified fire plan examiners(or private companies)to provide fire code plan checking services.(Accomplished through the one-stop counter) • #88 The hazardous material inspector should become certified as a fire inspector to allow greater flexibility in assignment. • #90 The civilian Public Education Specialist should be retained to provide adult and children programs. • #91 .5 to 1 FTE clerical position is needed to provide 5-10 hour day coverage for reception and phone duties,at a lower cost than having certified fire inspectors perform these duties. 3. Recommendations relating to general operations: • #36 Monitor response times in areas with traffic calming devices. • #43 and #44 Call processing, dispatch and turnout times much higher than recommended standards. Implement changes such as to dispatch first fire unit before all call information is entered into the CAD system. • #67 The City should maintain the current two-tiered system that involves the SLCFD and a private ambulance provider in the delivery of Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) pre-hospital care and ambulance transport. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) 7 • #68 The SLCFD should formalize and strengthen its organizational structure and oversight of EMS service delivery within the Operations Division. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) 4. Recommendations relating to budget increases/fees: • #6 Add technologies to eliminate manual processes for firefighter shift schedules and free up staff resources for other critical projects. • #69 The SLCFD should explore a legal mechanism that will allow the ambulance transport provider to pay the City an annual fee for its "paramedic first responder" program. (Fee not allowed under state law. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) • #16 Allocate revenue from special events back to the EMS Division to offset the cost of the bike patrol. • #99 Establish a self-inspection program for the lower risk businesses. • The following recommendations all relate to the issue of fees charged(or not charged)for permits and inspections: i. #104 Institute fees for all permits(only 14 fees out of 47 permits). ii. #85 Establish fees for fire construction permits that are sufficient to cover the cost of the entire construction code enforcement function including fire plan review and fire construction inspection. iii. #103 Fire construction permits with fees should be issued for the construction and renovation of permanent or temporary structures and for all fire protections systems (alarms, mains, standpipes,sprinklers,hood,etc.) iv. #105 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections for all operational code enforcement inspections. v. #107 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections conducted by fire companies. vi. #108 Evaluate feasibility of building Services issuing all permits and collecting fees rather than the Fire Department. • #122-128 Workload data on the number of plans reviewed and the amount of time spent on each type of plan should be collected. Establish goals. • #149 Mobile computer devices should be installed in fire apparatus to improve communication capabilities and response times. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The Fire Department has several goals and objectives to guide the budgeting process and provide a means for management to better evaluate overall Department performance. In order to assist the Council in evaluating progress, Council staff summarized the goals and noted the results or steps taken by the Department. Note: this data is from 2006. The Council may wish to ask for updated indicators. 1. Goal/Objective: Maintain an average time from dispatch to arrival on life-threatening emergencies of less than or equal to 5 minutes. During 2006 the department maintained an average response time of four minutes nineteen seconds. 2. Goal/Objective: Maintain a turnover rate below 10% per year. The department's "turnover" rate during 2006 was approximately 3.6% (.3% higher than FY 2004). 3. Goal/Objective: Fire Prevention Bureau inspectors will complete 6,500 fire inspections and preplans annually. The department has exceeded this goal in 2006 with 17,527 building 8 inspections and preplan reviews completed by FPB inspectors and firefighters (significantly higher e .;. than the 7,901 inspections completed in FY 2004). 4. Goal/Objective: Complete 350 community training events with 19,000 participants annually. The department far exceeded these goals in 2006 with 1,061 community training events and 34,665 participants (increased from 862 events in FY 2004). 5. Goal/Objective: Ensure 90% of employees will perform at or above the "satisfactory" level on their annual performance evaluation. Currently 99.7% (similar to the previous year) of the employees have received satisfactory or better on the annual performance evaluation. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS A. In FY 2009,the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to fuel efficient vehicles and medical calls: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council regarding how a more fuel efficient vehicle could be used on medical calls with the current staffing and operational models." The Administration's Response is as follows: The Department successfully negotiated a response plan with Gold Cross Ambulance that allows for an ambulance only response on the Alpha medical calls. This change in response has reduced the fire department response by"more than 2,000 calls per year, greatly reducing fuel consumption and carbon exhaust. The Medical Division is developing its alternative response types for all medical calls,which will most likely include smaller vehicles responding. This will allow for less of the larger vehicles (engines and trucks) to respond. The smaller vehicles will have a significantly better fuel economy than the engines and trucks. B. In 2008 the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to fitness for duty: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provide the Council with a progress report on implementation of the physical fitness requirement for City Fire and Police positions." The Administration's Response is as follows: The Fire Department's Task Performance Test (1'1'1) is now a multi-year program that is well established.The Department continues to have a 95%pass rate. This year, the Department is partnering with the University of Utah to implement the Get Fit program. This program will assist firefighters in developing an individualized personal fitness program. There is no cost to the City or the firefighter or this program. C. In 2008,the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to overtime: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Fire Department continue to take measures to reduce the reliance on overtime and submit a written report to the Council outlining total amount spent for constant staffing at a straight-time rate and amount spent at an overtime rate." The Fire Department implemented the resource allocation change on February 1, 2010. The first two months (March and April)have shown that the Department's use of overtime has been reduced. A detailed report on overtime use will be provided at the beginning of FY 11 after several months of tracking. 9 EXECUTIVE ORDER - Relating to Fire Department Combat Crews Revised March 2007 Fire Department Combat Crews RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCY: Fire Department 1. General 1.1 The City has created a Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program within the Fire Department to provide staffing of four firefighters per engine or truck to the extent possible. The Fire Chief shall maintain the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program as one of the highest budget priorities of the Fire Department and shall manage the Fire Department budget with a goal of adequately funding that program. 1.2 When staffing levels would otherwise be reduced, the Fire Chief shall solicit volunteers from the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program only. The Fire Chief is not obligated to solicit other employees from the Department employee roster to provide staffing of four firefighters per engine or truck. 1.3 Fire Department personnel working either under the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program or otherwise off the employee roster shall be compensated as required by City ordinance or by any memorandum of understanding between the City and the employees' representative organization. CURRENT REFERENCES: None EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2002 • EFFECTIVE DATE OF CURRENT REVISION (Date signed by Mayor): March 29, 2007 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 18, 2009, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Penfold Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Karen Halladay, Policy Analyst; Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Nick Tarbet, Council Analyst and Constituent Liaison; Lehua Weaver, Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Bob Farrington, Economic Development Director; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Yolanda Francisco-Nez, Office of Diversity and Human Rights; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Brian Roberts, Senior City Attorney; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; David Salazar, Compensation Program Administrator; Msarina Scott, Deputy City Treasurer; Ralph Chamness, Senior City Attorney; Eve Furse, Senior City Attorney; Sim Gill, City Prosecutor; Sam Guevara, Assetts; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; David Hart, FAIA , Vice President/Regional Manager MOCA Systems and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Martin presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2 : 10 : 33 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FORM DAVID HART, FAIA, VICE PRESIDENT/REGIONAL MANAGER OF MOCA SYSTEMS, REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES. David Hart, Sam Guevara, David Everitt and Wilf Sommerkorn briefed the Council with the attached handout . #2 . 2 : 43 : 35 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010- 2011.View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember 10 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 Christensen asked Mr. Hoskins about the web version of the IFAS accounting system. Mr. Hoskins said this would allow the City to be more transparent with regard to financial reporting. Ms . Gust-Jenson said the system was not user friendly or on the cutting edge. She said staff spent too much time during the budget process . Mr. Hoskins said a new system would be $10 to $15 million. Ms . Bruno asked if the Council wanted a legislative intent regarding transit costs for employees. She said she would gather information. Ms. Chamness said employees had been divided into transit areas and this information was available. Councilmember Simonsen asked Mr. Hoskins to look at the music licensing contracts . He said this was not a core need and might be eliminated. Councilmember Martin asked why we had three licenses . A discussion was held regarding Item 29, Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Evaluation in Implementation Strategy concluding with the need for one time only funding of $100, 000 . #3 . 3 : 58 : 12 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011. View Attachments Fire Chief Kurt Cook, David Everitt and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Gust-Jenson said staffing for Fire Plan Review was short by one half on the CED side and needed to be looked at. #4 . 4 : 19 : 01 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 2010-2011. Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Sim Gill and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Weaver said one change for the Attorney' s Office was the transfer of the Recorder' s Office to the department. View Attachments. #5. 4 : 49 : 26 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE PROPOSED FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE PROPOSED HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011.View Attachments Gordon Hoskins, Deb Alexander and Sylvia Richards briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Richards said the new Department of Finance and included the division of accounting, division of purchasing and contracts, revenue auditing, business licensing, office of the City Treasurer and the division of financial reporting and accounting. She said the Council would be holding a collections 10 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 briefing on June 1, 2010 . 4 : 51 :45 Ms . Alexander said they were putting new process in place. #6 . (TENTATIVE) DISCUSSION REGARDING UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET. #7 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING AY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES)WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OF PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §52-4-205 (1) (d) , STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS PENDING REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §52-4- 205 (1) (c) ; FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; AND FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §78B-1-137 . Councilmember moved and Councilmember seconded to enter into the closed session, which motion carried all members voted aye. #8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 10-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 5 :48 p.m. Council Chair City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 18, 2010 . cm 10 - 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 18,2010 BUDGET FOR: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Sim Gill,Lynn Pace,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen The City Attorney's Office has historically contained three divisions:Civil Practice,City Prosecutor's Office,and Risk Management.As part of the Administration's 2010-11 proposal for reorganization and elimination of the Administrative Services Department,the Recorder's Office would be transferred to the Attorney's Office. (Budgets relating to the Risk Management Division are analyzed separately with the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance&Risk Management Fund.) The Mayor's Recommended Budget for the City Attomey's Office (General Fund portion) for fiscal year 2010-11 is as follows: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROPOSED BUDGET (General Fund) Adopted Proposed Percent 2009-10 2010-11 ' Difference Change Civil 8 Prosecutor's Offices Personal Services 4,154,728 4,211,930 57,202 1.4% Other Operating Expenses 359,197 359,197 0 0.0% Civil&Prosecutor's Total $ 4,513,925 $ 4,571,127 57,202 1.3% City Recorder's Office Personal Services 387,741 _Other Operating Expenses 118,810 City Recorders Total see note below' $ 506,551 506,551 Attorney's Office Total $ 4,513,925 $ 5,077,678 563,753 12.5% 'Note:The adopted FY 2009-10 budget for the City Recorder's Office was$493,286.Changes to their budget will be discussed below.However,for the purposes of showing the changes to the City Attorney's Office budget,the Recorder's Office 2009-10 amount is shown as-0-. OVERVIEW OF KEY ELEMENTS • Administrative reorganization-the Administration proposes transferring the Recorder's Office to the City Attorney's Office.There are no costs to this reorganization;the increases reported are not a result of the reorganization. o Without taking into account the transfer of the Recorder's Office into the Attorney's Office,the budget for ongoing functions increases by$57,202 or 1.3%. o The total 12.5% change reflected in the chart above is mostly due to the Recorder's Office transfer and not a true increase to the general fund budget. • Elimination of four positions-three in the Civil Division and one in the Prosecutor's Office. Three of these positions were vacant and one civil attorney position was filled and is considered a lay-off. The total savings of the eliminations is$329,848.These are discussed in more detail below. • Restoration of the career ladder program in the Attorney's Office. Last year,the Council cut the Attorney's Office career ladder program for a savings of$70,000.This was intended to be a one- time cut.The proposed budget includes$85,000 for salary adjustments as follows: o Approximately $70,000 of the funding is to restore the traditional career ladder program. It is proposed to be used in the Civil Division for Senior City Attorneys promoted to Appointed Senior City Attorneys(at-will positions),and some prosecutors in the Prosecutor's Office as they progress from Associate,Assistant,Senior Assistant prosecutor positions. o The career ladder program is similar to step increases used in other departments. As with the rest of the City, step or merit increases were eliminated during the current budget year. o The justification behind the career ladder program is to provide the necessary flexibility to adjust pay to recognize an employee's performance,responsibilities,and competency. This helps to maintain a competitive position for attorney and prosecutor salaries. The City has lost attorneys and prosecutors to both public and private entities in the past due to comparative salary and/or workload levels. o In addition to the $70,000, approximately $15,000 of the funding would be used for salary adjustment for civil attorneys as the workload is shifted as a result of the proposed lay-off. • Market adjustments per the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee recommendations. There is$79,673 budgeted to adjust the salaries for attorneys benchmarked to Appointed Senior City Attorney positions in the Civil Division, and for employees benchmarked to paralegal positions in both Civil and Prosecutor's Offices. This will adjust the pay of existing employees whose actual average pay is more than 10% below that of other local employers. More information about the market adjustments will be discussed during the Compensation briefing on May 25. The market adjustments are a separate issue from the career ladder program,although both are aimed at maintaining a competitive position when comparing compensation with other entities. As the Council discussed with the CCAC Board Members,this is a step to resolving the issue that certain salary ranges within the City are remarkably below market rates. CIVIL PRACTICE DIVISION-KEY ELEMENTS The Civil Practice Division provides legal support for the City's departments, including the City Council and Mayor,and litigation defense of state and federal court lawsuits filed against the City as well as bringing lawsuits and administrative proceedings on behalf of the City. The Division provides the following service:Departmental Legal Support,Litigation,State Legislative Advocacy,Paralegal Support,and Administrative Support. Some of the attorneys'time is spent on the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. Council staff will prepare separate staff reports on the budgets for these two separate funds. 2 Personal Services Adjustments - In addition to the items discussed above, the other changes that affect this budget are: Elimination of Positions: ($283,216 decrease) - The Administration proposes eliminating two vacant positions and one staffed position in the Civil Division.These positions are: • Civil Attorney(lay-off):$104,000.This position is currently filled.The remaining 13 civil attorneys will absorb this workload.In order to manage that increased workload,each attorney will work with their assigned department to refine priority levels for work and requests. • Civil Attorney assigned to the Airport(vacant):$128,220. This position was not filled, and through discussions with the Airport Director,the Administration has decided to eliminate this position.There is a remaining attorney assigned to the airport,and the Administration has indicated that as issues with airport expansion or other items arise, the Airport and Attorney's Office may utilize outside legal counsel or contract counsel as necessary.(There was offsetting revenue for this position since the airport reimburses the general fund for services provided.That revenue items has been eliminated too.) • Legal Secretary(vacant):$50,996.This position has been vacant for some time,and has been held vacant during the past few rounds of mid-year adjustments for budget reductions. (Since for the current 2009-10 budget this position was held vacant as a one- time reduction,the 2010-11 budget includes the restoration of that one-time reduction. This is an accounting step to accurately reflect the elimination of the position as an ongoing cut for 2010-11.Basically,there is an addition of$40,253 to restore the one-time cut and then a reduction of$50,996 to eliminate the position.) 1.5%Salary Restoration&Benefit Changes-to restore the 1.5%salary suspension,in addition to pension and insurance rate changes. CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE-KEY ELEMENTS The City Prosecutor's Office screens, charges, files, and prosecutes criminal violations. The City Prosecutor's Office is organized into teams as follows: City Prosecutor Teams 2010-11 Paralegal& Team Attorneys Support Staff Justice Court _ 8 4 District Court 3 1 Domestic Violence 1 (grant funded by the State of Utah) Screening (also cover traffic 4 4 calendars) Filing, reception, other 4 support Management 1 1 Total 16 15 3 Personal Services Adjustments- In addition to the items discussed above,the other changes that affect this budget are: Elimination of Position: ($46,632 decrease)-The Administration proposes eliminating a vacant office tech position in the Prosecutor's Office.The Council may recall that the ratio of support staff to attorneys has historically been an issue in the Prosecutor's Office. The issue is closely linked to both the operations and caseload at the Justice Court,and is also a factor in the budget for the Legal Defenders (a part of the non-departmental budget). Historically, the Administration has also argued that this is a factor in attorney retention,because of competitive workloads. (Since for the current 2009-10 budget this position was held vacant as a one-time reduction,the 2010-11 budget includes the restoration of that one-time reduction.This is an accounting step to accurately reflect the elimination of the position as an ongoing cut for 2010-11. Basically, there is an addition of $46,237 to restore the one-time cut and then a reduction of$46,632 to eliminate the position.) 1.5%Salary Restoration&Benefit Changes-to restore the 1.5%salary suspension,in addition to pension and insurance rate changes. RECORDER'S OFFICE-KEY ELEMENTS The Recorder's Office provides public meeting notification, City Council meeting minutes, coordination of city elections including candidate forms,support for contract execution,and records maintenance. To provide these functions to the various City Departments,the Recorder's Office has five full-time and one part-time employees. /� The adopted budget for the Recorder's Office in 2009-10 was$493,286.Their proposed 2010-11 budget CD of$506,551 is an increase of$13,265 or 2.7%.This is primarily attributable to the restoration of the 1.5% salary suspension and insurance coverage changes. The largest budget item in the Recorder's Office,aside from personal services,is the cost for printing public notices.This budget item is$67,654 of their$118,810'other operating expenses'budget. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about the impact of the eliminated positions on the workloads of remaining staff members. 2. The Council may wish to ask about the Administration to evaluate whether the City Recorder's Office has access to the technology necessary to address the City's needs. 4 Q ,o,g SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 14,2010 SUBJECT: Resolution:$12 million Water&Sewer Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Sewer Line Improvements STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis,Rusty Vetter, Dan Mule Since the Council's August 10th briefing about the issuance of bonds, some changes have occurred.The Administration still proposes issuing bonds for the Orange Street Sewer line project, however rather than issuing Build America Bonds,the Administration has an opportunity to issue privately held bonds for a better interest rate and lower issuance costs. The Administration will "lock-in" the rate the morning of the hearing so that the resolution adopted by the Council is complete.The Administration also proposes issuing the full$12 million in bonds,the not-to-exceed par amount reflected in the Parameters Resolution,rather than an amount closer to the estimated Orange Street sewer line budget of$10 million. The Council's motion on August 10th authorized the Administration to move ahead with the details of issuing the bonds,including final proposed amount,confirming the interest rate,and other terms.The Administration will be present at the September 14 hearing to provide finalized details(such as confirming the final interest rate locked-in on the morning of September 14),and answer questions from the Council. According to the updated transmittal(attached),issuing the full amount of$12 million in bonds and the different interest rate,the estimated annual debt payment on the bonds would be$755,000. At the time of the briefing, assuming the lower bond issuance and higher interest rate, the estimated payment was$740,000. Options: If the Council does not support issuing the full$12 million in bonds,that change should be incorporated into the motion. MOTIONS Item C-1-Public Hearing "(I move that the Council}Close the public hearing and refer to Item D-1 for action on the proposed resolution. Item D-1-Action Item "(I move that the Council)Adopt and approve the resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of$12,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 of the City;authorizing the execution and delivery of certain documents relating to such bonds;and providing for related matters. } Information provided previously for the August 10 briefing and action: As discussed during the annual budget, the Department of Public Utilities plans to bond for up to $12 million for utility improvements. The primary project is the Orange Street Sewer Main rehabilitation. On August 10, the Council will receive a briefing and consider adopting the parameters resolution establishing the details of the bond sale. This resolution adoption also sets the date of September 14,2010 for a hearing prior to finalizing approval for the bond issuance. MOTION In addition to the briefing, the Council will also take action on the parameters resolution and setting a date for a September 14 Public Hearing.Bond Counsel has provided the following motion language: "{I move that the Council)Adopt a resolution that authorizes the issuance and sale of up to $12,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the City's water and sewer revenue bonds to finance all or a portion of certain improvement,facilities and property that will be part of the City's water,sewer and stormwater system;provides for a public hearing on September 14,2010 and provides for related matters. KEY ELEMENTS • Project Information: o The primary project funded by the bond will be the rehabilitation of the 48-inch Orange Street Sewer Main from Orange Street (1700 West) and North Temple to the pre- treatment pump station across Rose Park Golf Course past 1700 North Redwood Road. • Estimated budget:$10 million • The project will be "trenchless," using a 'cured-in-place' pipe liner. This is a new method of rehabilitating the sewer main, and significantly reduces the amount of construction along the line. • This project is a priority because of the condition of the sewer main-evidenced by two emergency repairs in the past year, and a comprehensive study as part of the recent sewer master plan. o The bond language is broad enough that if the Orange Street project is less than the amount budgeted,the funding could be used toward other utility projects. • Bonding Information: o The Administration plans to issue "Build America Bonds" for this project. The Council may recall that during an April discussion about Public Safety Building bonds, the Administration introduced information about"Build America Bonds." o The bonds are taxable and the rate is comparatively higher, but the issuer (the City) receives an interest rebate from this program. (Please see the attached April memo from Chapman&Cutler providing details of the Build America Bonds.) o The bonds cover eligible capital costs,including design and engineering. 2 o Public Utilities estimates that the annual repayment amount will be $740,000 for 20 years. This amount factors in the rebate, and the final effective interest rate will be around 4%. o The Administration will apply for the rebate annually, following the terms and processes outlined as part of the program. o The availability of the Build America Bonds, with the current rebate structure, is set to expire on January 1, 2011. If the City sells these bonds prior to that date, the terms are set. • Council Action Timeline: August 10 Council Briefing, Adoption of the Parameters Resolution, Setting the Date for the Public Hearing September 14 Council Public Hearing 30 Days of Comment Period October(TBD) Council take action on the Bond Resolution&Purchase Agreement October(end) Official Bond Closing(Administration) QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. If the Orange Street main does not use the full$12 million bond, the Council may wish to ask what other projects are next. 2. The Build America Bonds have some detailed compliance requirements to qualify for the rebate. If the project is not properly qualified,the City may no longer receive the rebate,but the bonds would continue at the same taxable rate. The Council may wish to ask for a reminder of what other risks are associated with this bonding option. 3 Chapman and Cutler LLP MEMORANDUM To: Salt Lake City, Utah FROM: Chapman and Cutler LLP DATE: April 7,2010 RE: Qualified Build America Bonds In February, 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "Act"), Congress enacted Section 54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), permitting a state or local government to issue a new type of taxable,obligation called Build America Bonds to finance governmental projects. The interest on Build America Bonds is included in the income of the holders thereof for federal income tax purposes. The Act permits two types of alternative interest subsidies by the federal government: (a) the issuer of a Build America Bond that is a qualified bond may elect to receive a payment directly from the Secretary of the Treasury (the "Secretary") equal to 35% of the interest on the bond or (b) if an obligation is not a qualified bond or the issuer does not elect to receive a payment with respect to a qualified bond, a holder of a Build America Bond will receive a tax credit if the holder owns the Build America Bond on the interest payment dates for such bonds. This memorandum focuses on the requirements for and the issues surrounding qualified Build America Bonds ("Qualified BABs") for which the issuer has elected to receive a subsidy from the Secretary. REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED BABs I. Satisfy Requirements for Tax-Exempt Bonds. Although they are taxable, Build America Bonds must meet the requirements applicable to tax-exempt obligations, with certain modifications. The issuer must make an election to treat the bonds as Build America Bonds and the bonds must be issued before January 1,201 I. 2. Limitation on Original Issue Premium. Original issue premium on a Build America Bond cannot exceed a de minimis amount. Generally, the premium is de minimis if it does not exceed 025% multiplied by the number of complete years to maturity of the bonds (or, if earlier, the optional redemption date of the bond that results in the lowest yield on the bond) multiplied by the stated redemption price at maturity of the bond. It is important to note that the premium is calculated on the issue price of the maturity at which a substantial amount of the bonds of the maturity are in fact sold. This is different from the arbitrage rules, where a reasonable expectation test can be applied. As is discussed below, the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") has focused on the determination of the issue price for determining premium. 2789349.01.04.8.doc 9007857/RDB/mo Chapman and Cutler LLP 3. Capital Expenditure Requirement. A Build America Bond is a Qualified BAB if 100% of the available project proceeds are used for capital expenditures or to fund a reasonably required reserve. Available project proceeds generally consist of the proceeds from the sale of the issue (and investment earnings thereon) less up to 2% of the lesser of par or the issue price that can be used to pay costs of issuance, including bond insurance premiums. Generally speaking, a capital expenditure is the cost of an asset that lasts for more than one year. Costs of land acquisition are normally capital expenditures,as are costs of building a building or a road or buying furniture or equipment with a life longer than a year. "Soft costs" such as architects and engineering fees that are directly tied to a capital construction project are generally capital expenditures as well. 4. Receiving the Interest Subsidy. Issuers of Qualified BABs must submit Forms 8038-CP to request subsidy payments. For a fixed interest rate bond, a Form 8038-CP must be filed for each interest payment date no later than the date that is 45 days before the relevant interest payment date, but may not be submitted earlier than 90 days before the relevant interest payment date. For a variable interest rate bond, an issuer must total all subsidy payments on a quarterly basis and file a Form 8038-CP for each quarter for reimbursement in arrears no later than the date that is 45 days after the last interest payment date for the quarterly period for which reimbursement is being requested. The IRS has indicated that late filed forms will be processed; however,the subsidy may not be paid by the applicable interest payment date. ISSUES SURROUNDING BUILD AMERICA BONDS AND QUALIFIED BABS a. Post-Issuance Compliance Check Questionnaire. The IRS has indicated that it will send a post-issuance compliance questionnaire to each issuer of Build America Bonds. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the current Direct Pay Bonds Compliance Check Questionnaire. Once received,issuers should respond to the Questionnaire. As can be seen from the attached Questionnaire, the IRS is checking with issuers to see, among other things, what types of procedures issuers have instituted to ensure compliance with the Build America Bonds provisions. While the Tax Compliance Certificate and Agreement prepared by Chapman and Cutler LLP in connection with the issuance of Build America Bonds constitutes a form of written procedures, we recommend that issuers develop other internal procedures to monitor post- compliance (including arbitrage, private activity and remedial actions). b. Risk of Non-Compliance. In the event an issuer does not comply with the requirement for Qualified BABs, the bonds would no longer be considered Qualified BABs and the issuer would no longer receive the subsidy payment from the Secretary, but the bonds would remain outstanding and bear interest at a taxable rate. Also, while there is currently no guidance on the point, in the event of a controversy regarding compliance Qualified BABs requirements, it is possible that the Secretary may withhold subsidy payments until the controversy is resolved. c. Funding of Debt Service Reserve Requirement. Currently there is no guidance from Congress or the IRS regarding the proper sizing of a debt service reserve requirement for Qualified BABs. For tax-exempt bonds, the debt service reserve requirement is generally the lesser of (i) 100% of the maximum annual debt service on the bonds, (ii) 125% of the average • Chapman and Cutler LLP debt service on the bonds or(iii) 10%of the principal amount or issue price of the bonds. For determining the maximum annual debt service or the average debt service on Qualified BABs,it is not clear at this point if the debt service should be determined net of subsidy payments,which would result in a smaller debt service reserve requirement. If the IRS requires the debt service reserve requirement be determined based on debt service net of the subsidy payment and rating agencies require that the debt service reserve requirement be sized by ignoring the subsidy, issuers may be required to deposit additional monies(not Qualified BABs proceeds)in order to satisfy the debt service reserve requirement. d. Issue Price. Question #2 of the Questionnaire probes what actions, if any, the issuer is taking to ensure that the issue price is within the premium limits for Build America Bonds. For purposes of premium compliance,the issue price is the price at which at least 10% of each maturity of the bonds are sold to the public. The public is defined as a party who is not acting in the capacity of an underwriter or broker(an "Intermediary"). If 10%of a maturity has not been sold to the public at an issue price of less than par plus allowable premium, any Intermediary who purchases such maturity may only resell such maturity at a price below the premium limits for Build America Bonds. If Build America Bonds are sold at a price in excess of par plus the allowable premium prior to establishing the issue price certain remedial actions may be necessary. e. Advance Refunding Considerations. At this point in time there has been no guidance given by Congress or the IRS as to the advance refunding of Qualifi d BABs; provided,that,Qualified BABs cannot be used to refund (either as an advance refunding or a current refunding)any outstanding bonds. Further guidance may be required prior to advance refunding any Qualified BAB. f. Structuring of Debt Service Payments. Because there is no guarantee that the interest subsidy will be received prior to the interest payment date,the issuer of Qualified BABs will need to ensure that sufficient funds are on hand to make the initial interest payment. Thereafter the subsidy received can be used to off subsequent interest payments. g. Offset. The amount of the subsidy Qualified BABs may'be offset by any amount that the issuer may owe to the federal government. There is a chance that the Secretary can withhold subsidy payments for amounts that the federal government considers is owed to it,even if the amounts are being disputed by the issuer. The offset can be automatic for certain payments and is tied to an issuers employer identification number. PENDING LEGISLATION While the Build America Bond program is set to expire at the end of this year,there is legislation pending in Congress that,if passed,would continue the program in some form. -3- Chapman and Cutler LLP EXHIBIT A CURRENT IRS DIRECT PAY BONDS COMPLIANCE CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE A-1 1 ( s ( ( ( ( ( 11 ( ( ( ( ( { Sewer Pre-Treatment Plant ( ( ( (-{ ( ( ( (( ( ( ( - ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( („�a,I ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( !( ( . ( (( f ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( c ( ( ( 0 ( al (` ( ( ( ` ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( — a ,( ( ( ( ( -( ( —. <_ ( ( ( ( x 1 ( `�( r f( ( l ( « ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( c ( ( ( (( !`w4-— ( ( ((( ( �,�, ( ( Mf ( ( r( ( ( .( ( ( ( < ( I I ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( .( ..( ( (� g ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 _ I — ( ( ( ( .( ( ( ( ( (( ( (( , ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( (' ( ( ( ( ( („` ( l ( ( ( ( ® w.,( ( ( ( ..( -.( ( ( ( ( ( (( ((� C- .f e ( ( _,1 ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( .--> ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I`, .-( ( ( ( ( ( �,P„6.* < s ( ( ( ( ( ( I ( ( ( ( , ,r ( i ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( t ( (( ( (- ' - (I ( ( (--(w',' ( ( (I ( ( ( I ( ( i` ( ( a�.,, . ( ( ( ( ( ( (I I I ( ( ( i( (=° ( (( ( ' I ( ( ( c (( (( C( ( (I I ( ( ( °( (( ( I I (_ ( f I I c ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( ___/` ( ( ((( ( ( ( ( I I ( ( ( c I 44 : ( IMAGE(2009) I i •--- 48"Orange St.Main to be Lined a i ( • ( ( ( GER„=,,E Sewer Main i 1 ( ( Sewer Manhole (( ( ( (( TEMPLE K ( ( ( Sewer Lift Station I Wednesday,August 04,2010 File:O:\Arcview\arcgis Projects\orange_st_48in_rehab.mxd Orange Street Prepared By:Brandon Arnold alt Lake Cit Public Utilities �; Public Main Rehab • LS.Division Feet RECEIVED SCANNED TO: ?k'iL}E,' SCANNE BY: IT JUL 2 6 2010 DATE: 7 z JEFFRY T. NIERMEYER • r' RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL JUL 2 2 2010 Salt Lake City Mayor / `t A'� Date Received: ZZ z io D • i • aff Date sent to Council: 1c TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 19, 2010 J. T. Martin, Chair FROM: Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director 4lL SUBJECT: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2010, Resolution Authorizing a Public Hearing for the Purpose of Financing the Construction of Sewer Line Improvements. STAFF CONTACT: Jim Lewis, Finance Administrator(483-6773) DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Resolution RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion in anticipation of approving a Parameters Resolution in August for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing Public Hearing on August 10, 2010 that will a) authorize a Notice of Public Hearing to be published twice prior to the date set for the public hearing; and b) set September 14, 2010 as the date to hold the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT: Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs would average $740,000 per year for 20 years. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In accordance with provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, the City is required to hold a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to: a) the issuance of our revenue bonds; and b)the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. The financing team is requesting that the City Council approve a motion on August 10, 2010 setting Tuesday, September 14, 2010 as the date to hold the public hearing. A Notice of Public Hearing is required to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the first publication being at least 14 days prior to the date set for the public hearing. The Parameters Resolution for the above-referenced bond issue will contemplate the issuance of up to $12 million principal amount of bonds bearing interest at a rate not to 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: B01-483.6900 FAX: 801-483.6818 WWW.SLCGOV.COM RECYCLED PAPER exceed 7% and maturing in not more than 21 years. The Parameters Resolution is scheduled for adoption on September 14, 2010. Attached is the draft of the Resolution Authorizing Public Hearing. Attachment cc: Daniel A. Mule, Jim Lewis 2 AcctgEvicel\BONDS tREVBONDS\2010 Bond Issue Bueling lleaiing Parameter Res doc Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 07/19/10 RESOLUTION No. OF 2010 A Resolution authorizing the issuance of not more than $12,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah, fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds,the maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature,the maximum interest rate which the bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold; authorizing the publication of a Notice of Bonds to Be Issued; providing for the publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and the holding of a public hearing;and related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS,the City Council(the "City Council")of Salt Lake City,Utah(the "City") considers it desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City and the users of the water, sewer and stormwater system of the City (the "System") to issue its water and sewer revenue bonds, in one or more series (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of (a) financing certain improvements,facilities and property that will be part of the System,including,but not limited to the replacement of the Orange Street sewer trunk line and various other sewer improvements(the "Project"),(b)funding any necessary reserves and(c)paying all related costs authorized by law; WHEREAS,pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"), the City has the authority to issue its water and sewer revenue bonds for the foregoing purposes; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Act provides for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to Be Issued(the "Notice of Bonds to Be Issued") and the running of a 30-day contest period,and the City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds to be Issued at this time in compliance with said section with respect to the Bonds; WHEREAS,Section 11-14-318 of the Act requires that a public hearing be held to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector,and that notice of such public hearing be given, and, in satisfaction of such requirement,the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds(the "Notice of Public Hearing") pursuant thereto; WHEREAS, all or a portion of the expenditures relating to the Project (the "Expenditures") (a)have been paid from the water,sewer and stormwater enterprise fund(the "Fund")within the sixty days prior to the passage of this Resolution or(b)will be paid from the Fund on or after the passage of this Resolution;and 2845295.01.02.doc 8703050/RDB/mo SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution WHEREAS, the City desires (a) to provide for the holding of a public hearing and (b) to direct the publication of (i) the Notice of Bonds to Be Issued, and (ii) the Notice of Public Hearing in compliance with the applicable sections of the Act; Now, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Bonds to Be Issued;Authorization; Purpose. The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City and the users of the System for it to issue the Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000 to mature over a period not to exceed 21 years from their date or dates, to bear interest, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, at a rate or rates not to exceed 7.00% per annum, and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount, of not to exceed 2.00%, of the principal amount thereof, pursuant to (a) one or more resolutions to be adopted and approved by the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 1 (the "Final Bond Resolution"), authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of the Bonds, to be adopted by the City Council at a future date, (b) the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended and supplemented (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex 2, and (c) one or more supplemental trust indentures (the "Supplemental Indenture" and together with the Master Indenture, the "Indenture"), between the City and the Trustee, to be entered into at the time of issuance of the Bonds in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 3. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other provisions as are contained in the final form of the Bonds and the Indenture. Therefore, the City hereby declares its intention to issue, and hereby authorizes and approves the issuance of, the Bonds according to the provisions of this resolution (the "Resolution"), the Final Bond Resolution and the Indenture for the purpose of (a) financing the Project and (b) paying all related costs authorized by law; provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, and discount shall not exceed the maximums set forth in this Section 1. Section 2. Notice of Bonds to Be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 11-14-316 of the Act the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder of the City (the "City Recorder") shall cause a Notice of Bonds to Be Issued in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 4, to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, each a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and shall cause a copy of this Resolution, together with the annexes hereto, to be kept on file in the City Recorder's office for public examination during the regular business hours of the City Recorder for at least thirty (30) days after the date of such publication set forth below. All actions previously taken by the City Recorder and other officers, employees and agents of the City to cause such publication are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds to Be Issued any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this Resolution (including the Final Bond Resolution and the Supplemental Indenture), or the Bonds hereby - 2 - SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution authorized or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this Resolution(including the Final Bond Resolution and the Supplemental Indenture)or the Bonds or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds for any cause. Section 3. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act,a public hearing shall be held by the City Council on Tuesday,September 14,2010, during the regular City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m.,at the regular meeting place of the City Council,in the Council Chambers,Room 315 in the City and County Building,451 South State Street,in Salt Lake City,Utah,to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. Section 4. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. In accordance with the requirements of Section 11-14-318,the City Recorder shall cause a Notice of Public Hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 5,to be(a)published in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News,each a newspaper having general circulation in the City and in which notices relative to the City are customarily published,once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the first publication being at least fourteen days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and(b)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website,at least fourteen days before the date set for the public hearing. Section 5. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the Fund for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Bonds. Section 6. Ratification. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the City and its officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. Section 7. Appointment of Bond Counsel. Chapman and Cutler LLP is hereby appointed as bond counsel for the Bonds. Section 8. Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining provisions, paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Resolution. Section 9. Conflict. All resolutions,orders and regulations or parts thereof in conflict herewith are,to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed. Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 17th day of August, 2010. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Chair Salt Lake City Council ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By Deputy City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED: By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney -4 - SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ANNEX 1 [ATTACH FORM OF FINAL BOND RESOLUTION] Annex 1 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ANNEX 2 [ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE] Annex 2 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ANNEX 3 [ATTACH FORM OF SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE] Annex 3 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ANNEX 4 NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, that on August 17, 2010, the City Council (the "City Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it authorized the issuance of the City's water and sewer revenue bonds, in one or more series (the "Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $12,000,000, to mature in not more than 21 years from their date or dates, to bear interest, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, at a rate or rates not to exceed 7.00% per annum and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount, of not to exceed 2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, the final form of the Bonds and the Supplemental Indenture,each described below. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to (a) the Resolution, (b) one or more final bond resolutions to be adopted by the City Council of the City at a future date (the "Bond Resolution"), (c) the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended and supplemented (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and (d) one or more supplemental trust indentures, each between the City and the Trustee (the "Supplemental Indenture"); provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities and discount will not exceed the maximums set forth above. The Supplemental Indenture will be entered into by the City at a future date prior to the issuance of the Bonds. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of (a) financing certain improvements, facilities and property that will be part of the City's water, sewer and stormwater system, including, but not limited to the replacement of the Orange Street sewer trunk line and various other sewer improvements (the "Project") and (b) paying all related costs authorized by law. The Bonds are payable from the water, sewer, stormwater and other revenues,and funds pledged therefor pursuant to the Master Indenture. A copy of the Resolution is on file in the office of the City Recorder of the City, located in Room 415, City and County Building, 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, where it may be examined during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Resolution (including the Master Indenture and drafts of the final bond resolution and the Supplemental Indenture) shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least 30 days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice. Annex 4-1 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that,pursuant to law,for a period of 30 days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice,any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the above-described Resolution (including the final bond resolution and the Supplemental Indenture)of the City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time,no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity,formality or legality thereof for any cause. DATED this 17th day of August,2010. SALT CITY,UTAH By Deputy City Recorder Annex 4-2 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution ANNEX 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 17, 2010, the City Council (the "City Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") adopted a resolution (the "Resolution"), calling a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its water and sewer revenue bonds, in one or more series (the "Bonds"), financing certain improvements, facilities and property that will be part of the City's water, sewer and stormwater system, including, but not limited to the replacement of the Orange Street sewer trunk line and various other sewer improvements (the "Project"), and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. TIME,PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will hold a public hearing during its regular City Council meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2010. The public hearing will be held at the regular meeting place of the City Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, written comments may be submitted to the City Council,to the attention of the City Recorder. PURPOSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of(1) financing all or a portion of the costs of the acquisition and construction of the Project and (2) paying all related costs authorized by law. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000. NO TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The Bonds are payable from the water, sewer, stormwater and other revenues, and funds pledged therefore and the City does not propose to pledge any taxes for the repayment of the Bonds. Annex 5-1 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution PURPOSE FOR HEARING The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds for the purpose of financing all or part of the cost of the Project and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. DATED this 17th day of August,2010. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Deputy City Recorder Annex 5-2 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 18, 2010 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Richards cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Debra Alexander, Bryan Hemsley, Dan Mule, Teresa Beckstrand, and Mary Beth Thompson The budgets for the Justice Court, Department of Information Management Services (IMS) and Insurance 86 Risk Management Fund will be analyzed in separate reports. REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Office of the Director of Administrative Eliminate Office of the Director position. Projected Services savings of$161,394, plus$24,531 in operating expenses associated with this position. Office of Budget and Policy Transferred to Mayor's Office Capital Asset Management Transferred to Community & Economic Development Civilian Review Board Transferred to Department of Human Resources Emergency Management Transferred to Police Department Finance New Department Treasurer's Office Transferred to Department of Finance Purchasing/Contracts Transferred to Department of Finance Human Resources New Department City Recorder Transferred to Attorney's Office Justice Court New Justice Court Division Sustainability and Environmental Management Transferred to Department of Public Services 1 Department of Finance Proposed 2010-11 Budget Accounting (Payroll,Accounts Payable and Grants Acquisition) $792,652 Financial Reporting& Budget(Financial Reporting,Budget Facilitation,Capital/Fixed Asset 359,494 Reporting) Purchasing/Contracts(Purchasing and Contract Development) 739,456 Auditing of Revenue/Business License(Revenue Auditing and Business Licensing) 850,438 Treasurer's Office(Cashiering,Cash&Debt Management and Special Assessments) 985,257 Total $3,727,297 The Department of Finance includes the functions of the former Finance Division, as well as Business Licensing, the Purchasing and Contracts Division and the Office of the City Treasurer. In total, there are 39.0 FTE's in this Division. Please note that merit increases, the 1.5% salary restoration, as well as pension and insurance increases are included in each division's proposed budget. Finance Issues: • Cash Conversion Budget Reduction The Administration proposes to eliminate the cash conversion funding of $39,000. This funding was originally intended to finance the cash conversion of employees' annual personal leave buyout. With the elimination of this funding, all of the former Administrative Services divisions will have to absorb these costs in the future. • Collections Briefing and Discussion The City Council will hold a Collections briefing and discussion on June 1st. The Administration is preparing documentation detailing collection efforts citywide, including current processes, comparisons of what the City has collected (FY 2009 versus 2010), potential for process improvement, and current challenges with regards to collections efforts. Accounting Division The Accounting Division's proposed budget for FY 2010-11 is $792,652. As this is a new division within the Finance Department, there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. The positions in this Division include: 2 #of FTEs Accounting Division .40 FTE Finance Director(A portion of this position is allocated to the Accounting Division,the Financial Reporting/Budget Division as well as Revenue Auditing/Business Licensing.) 1.0 FTE Controller 1.0 FTE Systems Support Administrator 3.0 FTEs Grant Acquisition/Project Coordinator 1.0 FTE Payroll Administrator 2.0 FTEs Accountant II Elimination of 1.0 FTE Financial Records&Filing Accountant(layoff). Responsibilities will be reassigned and absorbed by other positions. Projected savings of$48,200. 8.40 FTEs Total Financial Reporting&Budget Division This Division's proposed budget for FY 2010-11 is$359,494. As this is a new division within the Finance Department,there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. The positions in this Division include: #of FTEs Financial Reporting&Budget Division .20 FTE Finance Director(A portion of this position is allocated to the Accounting Division,the Financial Reporting/Budget Division as well as Revenue Auditing/Business Licensing.) 1.0 FTE Budget&Reporting Manager 1.0 FTE Accountant IV 1.0 FTE Staffing/Position Control Specialist 1.0 FTE Property Control Agent 4.20 FTEs Total Purchasing/Contracts Division The Purchasing/Contracts Division's proposed budget for FY 2010-11 is $739,456,which is an increase of$24,801 or 3.5%as compared to FY 2009-10. The increase is attributed to the 1.5%salary restoration. The positions in this Division include: 3 # of FTEs Purchasing as Contracts Division 1.0 FTE Chief Procurement Officer 1.0 FTE City Contracts Administrator 1.0 FTE Elimination of 1.0 FTE Purchasing Consultant II (vacant) Projected savings of$73,584. (This change leaves one remaining Purchasing Consultant II.) 2.0 FTEs Procurement Specialist I 2.0 FTEs Contract Development Specialist 1.0 FTE Office Facilitator I 1.0 FTE Contracts Process Coordinator 9.00 FTEs Total Revenue Auditing/Business License Division This Division's proposed budget for FY 2010-11 is $850,438. As this is a new division within the Finance Department, there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. Included in this budget is the Administration's proposal to allocate 30% of the Revenue Analyst and Auditor's salary cost to the Risk Fund. The Administration indicates that the Revenue Analyst ensures that the Risk Fund is being accounted for in the allocation of the administrative costs to the general fund, internal service funds and enterprise funds. The FTEs in this Division include: # of FTEs Revenue Auditing/Business License Division .40 FTE Finance Director (A portion of this position is allocated to the Accounting Division, the Financial Reporting/Budget Division as well as Revenue Auditing/Business Licensing.) 1.0 FTE Revenue Analyst/Auditor Manager 2.0 FTEs Revenue Analyst&Auditor 1.0 FTE Revenue Analyst&Administrative Internal Auditor 1.0 FTE Business License Administrator 2.0 FTEs Business License Enforcement Officer 1.0 FTE Development Review Combination Processor 2.0 FTE Business License Processor 10.40 FTEs Total Proposed Ordinance Fee Increase Current Ordinance Proposed Increase Anticipated Revenue Freight License sticker fee Increases freight sticker fee from$25.00 to $130,000 annually for sticker (12.56.330) and base $35.00 and requires base business license increase; $52,000 annually business license fee fee of$100. (Note: the freight sticker fee for base business license fee. (5.04.070) has not been increase in 20 years.) 4 With regards to the proposed fee increases,the Administration indicates that letters of notification are being sent to the delivery companies. The Business Advisory Board was not notified. Office of the Treasurer The proposed budget for the Treasurer's Office is$985,257,which is a$61,552 or 6.7%increase as compared to the FY 09-10 adopted budget.The increase in budget is, in part, a reflection of the Administration's request for$20,000 to change the Administrative Assistant to a full-time position. It is currently a.50 RPT position. The Administration indicates additional support is needed, given the increased amount of bond work that will be taking place in the next several years. The City's lack of coordination on bonding-related items and assessments (that don't ultimately lead to bonding)have created confusion which has led significant staff rework as well as use of bond counsel time due to errors. The Council may wish to discuss providing adequate resources to address the City's bonding needs. In addition,the Treasurer's Office is requesting$30,000 as a result of increased costs relating to the use of credit cards for building permits and impact fee payments. Credit card usage continues to increase, according to the Administration. The positions in this Division include: #of FTEs Treasurer's Office 1.0 FTE City Treasurer 1.0 FTE Deputy Treasurer 1.0 FTE Cash Management/Investment Analyst 1.0 FTE Cash Management Assessments Analyst 2.0 FTEs City Payment Processor 1.0 FTE Treasurer's Office Administrative Assistant(Add.50 FTE to make 1.0 FTE( Projected cost is$20,000. 7.00 FTEs Total LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS 1. Collections: In addition to focusing on collection strategies as an interim study issue, it is the intent of the Council that in the short-term,the Administration would make every reasonable effort to turn over collectibles to an outside agency for more immediate follow-up and to provide a quarterly report on the status of the collection efforts. Response from the Administration: The Justice Court shortened the timeframe for sending cases with judgments to collections from six years to ten days after judgment is entered. We are now 5 sending criminal cases to the State Office of Debt Collections, but that Office does not have jurisdiction over civil judgment cases and those will continue to be sent to an outside collection agency with the expedited timeframe in place. The OSDC will take only outstanding debt that has been reduced to a judgment. The State has contracted with 11 different collection agencies that they use along with their own in-house agents to collect on their accounts. The OSDC also has higher priority for intercepting state tax (and soon federal tax) returns, greatly increasing their chance of collecting. The OSDC adds a State allowed percentage to the bill and takes that amount as their fee, paying the City the entire face value of the judgment. Since February 7, 2010, the City has sent 426 criminal and traffic cases, totaling $174,000 to OSDC. In the short time OSDC has been working these cases, they have collected $13,628. Since OSDC can garnish income tax refunds, we should see a sharp increase in the amount collected next spring as well as a gradual increase as the number of cases sent increases. Business Licensing: Business Licensing has been aggressively working to collect on or clean up their outstanding receivables totaling $926,575. A strongly worded collection letter was sent to all past due businesses and has received excellent response. Respondents either made a payment or communicated that the business had been terminated, allowing uncollectable amounts to be written off. Business owners that do not respond will be taken to small claims court. Once a small claims judgment has been received, a garnishment or other collections effort will be pursued. INTERIM STUDY ITEM UPDATES 1. Citywide Collections strategy - In response to the City Council's expressed interest in aggressive collection of City receivables, the Administration has been working on setting up a City-wide Accounts Receivable system to identify, invoice and monitor the wide variety of receivables currently scattered across City departments. The Administration is examining all outstanding receivables to determine the best course of action for rapid collections. Collection procedures are being reviewed and process revisions are being implemented. Identify and quantify outstanding receivables: The Administration continues to identify areas within the City that bill customers for City services and is maintaining a master list of these receivables. The identified outstanding amount owed as of 3/31/10 is approximately $6.3 million. This includes $1,017,500 in parking tickets, $1,967,158 in Justice Court fines and $3,249,266 in other amounts owed. The Administration has implemented several process revisions that are slowly beginning to improve collections. To date, these changes have resulted in additional revenue of $46,074. Revenue Auditing also just recently closed a long outstanding debt of$600,000 with a telecommunication company and, as a result, the City will also have ongoing revenue of about $200,000. Implement IFAS Accounts Receivable Module: The Administration continues to 6 migrate divisions to the IFAS AR system. Innkeepers Tax and Parking Tax customers are on the system. Property Management and Public Services are in the process of entering all necessary data to the AR system. The Fire Department will be the next department to be moved to the system. Collection Agency for NSF Checks: The pilot program with ePayments was not as successful as hoped, collecting only 30% of non-sufficient funds (NSF) checks submitted. The pilot program will be discontinued. The outstanding returned (NSF) checks will instead be sent to a collection agency using the same schedule as parking tickets. In addition, the Treasurer's Office is implementing a city-wide digitized check system where all checks written to the City are converted to ACH (turned into a debit transaction instead of a paper check). This process has been tested in the Treasurer's office for the last 10 months and has resulted in far fewer returns (only 4 ACH's were returned during the test period). Office of State Debt Collection (OSDC): The Administration is working with the Utah Office of State Debt Collection to utilize their collections services. This process relies on Judges to review and release cases to be sent to collections (the OSDC will take only outstanding debt that has been adjudicated, meaning we have a warrant or judgment against the person for the debt, and they will not take civil cases). The State has contracted with 11 different collection agencies that they use along with their own in-house agents to collect on their accounts. The OSDC also has a higher priority for intercepting state tax (and soon federal tax) returns, greatly increasing their chance of collecting. The OSDC adds a State allowed percentage to the bill and takes that amount as their fee, paying the City the entire face value of the judgment. Since February 7, 2010, the City has sent 426 criminal and traffic cases, totaling $174,000 to OSDC. In the short time OSDC has been working these cases; they have collected $13,628. Since OSDC can garnish income tax refunds, we should see a sharp increase in the amount collected next spring as well as a gradual increase as the number of cases sent increases. We can only send the cases once they are delinquent, and the clerk must be able to find these cases while doing case management, which is only done when time permits, and with our reduced staffing this is not done as often as it once was. Business Licensing: Business Licensing had been aggressively working to collect on or clean up their outstanding receivables totaling $926,575. A strongly worded collection letter was sent to all past due businesses and has received excellent response. Respondents either made a payment or communicated that the business had been terminated, allowing uncollectable amounts to be written off. Business owners that do not respond will be taken to small claims court. Once a small claims judgment has been received, a garnishment or other collections effort will be pursued. 2. Transaction Fees - Encourage environmentally-friendly payment options for City-related transactions. In response to the City Council's expressed interest in assuring environmentally-friendly payment options for all City- 7 related transactions, the Administration has been working to identify areas that currently do not offer online or paperless transactions. The Administration has identified several areas where electronic invoicing could be effective. The Administration is working with departments to determine the feasibility for creating electronic invoices for the Public Utilities billing system, and the new Special Assessment Areas system. The new version of the Public Utilities billing system has the capability to send customers' bills via email or fax. This is being tested now and will be implemented in the near future. 3. Business License Fees - Research business license fees in order to develop a methodology that is equitable for both large and small businesses. The Administration is aware of the City Council's interest in developing a methodology for calculating business license fees that is equitable for both large and small businesses. At this time, the Administration, along with Business License staff, is working to insure that data, following the conversion from the Legacy System to Accela, is up-to-date and correct. At this point, there is not enough accurate data to conduct an analysis. As soon as the Business License database in Accela is error-free and fully functional, the Administration will begin an analysis of the methodology for calculating fees and consider potential changes to the fee structure. The Administration will keep the Council informed as this process continues, but at this point, the Administration is still working on the data necessary to develop the methodology. 8 Department of Human Resources Proposed 2010-11 Budget Human Resources Administrative Support(Payroll,Recruiting and compensation) $581,781 Departmental Consultants(compliance) 717,882 Training 78,530 Civilian Review Board Administration 136,088 Total $1,514,281 The Department of Human Resources includes the functions of Human Resources Administrative Support, Departmental Consultants,Benefits, Employee Training, and Civilian Review Board Administration. Overall, the proposed budget of $1,514,281 is an increase of$198,460 or 13.1%over FY 2009-10.The increase can be attributed to the transfer of the Civilian Review Board Investigator, as well as merit increases,the 1.5%salary restoration, and pension and insurance increases. There are a total of 20 FTEs(16.16 General Fund and 3.84 Risk Fund) included in this department. The Insurance&Risk Management Fund will be addressed in a separate staff report. Human Resources Administrative Support The proposed budget for Human Resources Administrative Support is$581,781. As this is a new division within the Human Resources Department, there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. #of FTEs Human Resources Administrative Support Division .66 FTE Human Resource Management Director(A portion of this position is allocated to the Human Resources Administrative Support Division, the Benefits Division 1.0 FTE Office Tech II .60 FTE Human Resource Information Systems Coordinator 1.0 FTE HR Office Administrator 1.0 FTE Compensation Program Administrator 1.0 FTE Civilian Review Board Investigator 1.0 FTE Employment Coordinator 6.26 FTEs Total With regards to the Civilian Review Board Investigator,the Administration indicates that additional duties will be added to that position, including working with the development and delivery of training. Other duties may be assigned as well. 9 Departmental Consultants The proposed budget for the Departmental Consultants is $717,882. The positions in this Division include: # of FTEs Departmental Consultants Elimination of Human Resource Deputy Director (vacant) Projected savings of$120,360. .90 FTE Senior HR Administrator 1.0 FTE Human Resource Consultant/Equal Employment Opportunity 2.0 FTEs Senior Human Resource Consultant 3.0 FTEs Human Resource Consultant 2.0 FTEs Human Resource Associate 8.90 FTEs Total Employee Training The proposed budget for Training is $78,530. As this is a new division within the Human Resources Department, there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. The function consists of 1.0 FTE: # of FTEs Training 1.0 FTE Training& Development Specialist 1.0 FTE Total Benefits The proposed budget for Benefits is $136,088. As this is a new division within the Human Resources Department, there are no budget comparison totals from prior years. # of FTEs Benefits .34 FTE Human Resource Management Director (A portion of this position is allocated to the Human Resources Administrative Support Division, the Benefits Division .10 FTE Sr. HR Administrator 1.0 FTE Employee Benefits Administrator .40 FTE Human Resource Information Systems Coordinator 1.0 FTE Employee Benefits Specialist 1.0 FTE Office Tech II 3.84 FTEs Total 10 The following chart reflects all of the ordinance changes relating to the reorganization of the various departments and divisions in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Ordinance Proposed Changes Section 2.08.020 Eliminates Department of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Section 2.09.060 Adds Mayor's Chief of Staff to emergency interim succession process; eliminates CAO in same section. Section 2.54.030A.1 Eliminates CAO and adds Mayor's Chief of Staff to list of individuals who approve take home vehicles. Section 2.72.060A Transfers Civilian Review Board (CRB) Investigator to Human Resources Department. Section 2.72.150 I References H.R. Director instead of CAO regarding CRB Investigator's reports. Section 2.35.080 References Dept. of H.R. as providing staff support to CRB Investigator (versus CAO's Office). Section 2.24.030B Eliminates Administrative Services from list of departments from which to choose for elected board members. Section 2.42.020A Eliminates reference to Administrative Services. Section 2.75,020B Eliminates reference to director of administrative services and states that hearing officers are supervised under the direction of the city justice court director. Section 8.04.020 Deletes the reference to "Office" of Animal Services. Section 10.02.100B Eliminates Dept. of Administrative Services and adds Human Resources as the department associated with the administrator of the police civilian review board. Section 2.08.025 Replaces Dept. of Administrative Services with Dept. of Finance as the responsible department for all financial services. Itemizes each division within the Finance Department. Deletes City Recorder and Budget Officer from the former Dept. of Administrative Services. Section 2.08.027 Adds Dept. of Human Resources and its responsibilities. Section 2.08.029 Adds Dept. of Information Management Services (IMS) and its responsibilities. Section 2.08.090A Adds Emergency management to the Police Department. Section 2.08.050 Adds Engineering, Capital asset management and non- parking civil enforcement, including sidewalk entertainers and artists'ordinance and enforcement of snow removal under the Dept. of Community and Economic Development. Section 2.08.040 Adds City Recorder to Attorney's Office. Section 2.04.010 Adds Policy &Budget and Budget Director under the powers and duties of the Mayor. Section 2.08.080 Adds Sustainability Division, Parks and Public Lands Division and Division of Youth & Family Programs and Fleet Management under the Dept. of Public Services. Eliminates references to engineering duties, supervision of design and construction of public works in the city and in the public way. 11 During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Department of Human Resources. During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions to be added to the Council's list for future audits. 12 YOUTHCITY ARTWAYS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART � ' 1 / ' . i ' 1. YouthCity Artways 2. YouthCity Artways Partner 3. Imagination Celebration Public Classes Programs r LOCATIONS I BILLED AGREEMENTS PARTNERS INCLUDE: • All SLC Public • Road Home Homeless Shelter • YouthCity Library Branches • Washington Elementary • Salt Lake City School District • Central City • Bryant Middle School • Salt Lake Community Action Lincoln ElementaryProgram Recreation • The City Library Center • Ensign Elementary • Fairmont Park • Computer Clubhouse • Kingsbury Hall • The Leonardo • • Northwest Tree Utah • The Mundi Project Recreation • Highland High School • Sorenson Multi- COLLABORATIONS Theater Dept. Cultural • Northwest Recreation • Utah Symphony & Opera • Sorenson Unity • Sorenson Unity Center & Computer • The Children's Theater Center Clubhouse • University of Utah • *See attached • Downtown Alliance • Salt Lake Community College • Neighborhood House • Westminster College registration form 1 • Gallivan Center • For specific programs see /- FUNDING • University of Utah YCA Programming Synopsis}• People's Market . / C General Funded: Fees , FUNDING collected for classes I FUNDING Imagination Celebration YCA with exception of Billed Agreements Funds are provided by Administration is general Library classes, which partner agency OR collaboration where funded. All activities are funded are free } both partners contribute funds. J through grants raised in-house.} � a J � 1 Ryy U u Community Art Classe Late Spring 2010: April 12 - May 29 Online & Mail-in Registration Starts March 22 Classes Preschool (18 months-5 years old) Creative Dance Central City Rec.Center Qr Sorenson Unity Center Parent&Child Dance Central City Rec.Center or Sorenson Unity Center Parent&Child Music Central City Rec.Center or Fairmont Park Qr Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center Parent&Child Visual Art Central City Rec. Center or Fairmont Park Elementary School(K-6th grades) Acoustic Guitar Northwest Multi-Purpose Center Now Introducing Animation Central City Rec. Center Bookmaking Anderson-Foothill or Sweet Library *Specialty Classes* `Colorful Mexico(visual art) Sprague Library Specialty classes explore a Creative Dance Main or Anderson-Foothill Library particular genre, medium Parent&Child Ceramics Northwest Multi-Purpose Center or topic more in depth, but Rock Band Day-Riverside Library still on an introductory level. Specialty Classes may be of- Visual Art Chapman or Day-Riverside Qr Sprague Library fered on a one-time basis, or occasionally throughout the Middle School and above (7th-12th grades) year. Class descriptions can Acoustic Guitar Northwest Multi-Purpose Center be foundcalling 801-535-6500e w5 . by 65 . Rock Band Day-Riverside Library Visual Art Day-Riverside Library How To Register Online: Starting Monday, March 22 at 10am Go to our website at www.youthcityartways.com and follow the link. By Mail: Starting Monday, March 22 Send a completed registration form (on back)and a check or money order payable to: YouthCity Artways 210 East 600 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Registrations are entered in the order received.You will receive confirmation by email or phone. By Phone: Phone registration does not start until Monday,April 5 at 10am We encourage you to register by mail or online,as you are more likely to get a space in your desired class. Complete the registration form on back and call 801-535-6053 YouthCity Artways classes are a public service for Salt Lake City residents. If classes have openings, non-residents may register beginning Monday,April 5 at 10am. About YouthCity Artways YouthCity Artways is Salt Lake City's arts education program. Our objectives are to encourage creativity, develop critical thinking, and instill a love of learning while teaching basic art skills. Classes vary by session and cover a range of art forms ,cluding Visual Arts, Performing Arts, Dance, Music, New Media, and Ceramics. Classes are held at library branches and ,.ommunity centers throughout Salt Lake City. Library classes are free of charge,while classes at community centers require a fee.See the registration form on back for class schedule and fee information. Class descriptions are available at our website www.youthcityartways.com or by calling our office at 801-535-6500. 1'(i 111 I [ti I I'll! �i�/!\'l� Registration Form •Complete one registration form per student,registration instructions on opposite side of this form. Late Spring 2010: April 12-May 29 •Classes fill up fast,so register early! If a class is full,please sign up on the waiting list. •Unless previous arrangements have been made,your slot will be given to another student if you do not attend the first day of class. •Classes are dependent upon enrollment.If a class is cancelled due to insufficient enrollment,payment will be refunded or transferred. •Refunds are not available after the second week of classes. •Please read through the Class Information Sheet at www.youthcityartways.com/classes Free Classes at Public Libraries - Library classes are completely free of charge, but registration is required. Anderson-Foothill Library, 1135 S.2100 E.,801-594-8611-Classes are held downstairs in the Meeting Room. Bookmaking ❑K-2nd Grades,Thursday 4-4:50pm Family Bookmaking ❑K-6th Grades and Parents,Thursday 5-5:50pm (register each participating child separately) Creative Dance ❑K-2nd Grades,Tuesday 4-4:50pm 0 3-6th Grades,Tuesday 5-5:50pm Chapman Library, 594 S. 900 W.,801-594-8623 -Classes are held downstairs in the Children's Area. Visual Art ❑K-2nd Grades, Monday 3:30-4:20pm 0 3rd-6th Grades, Monday 4:30-5:20pm Day-Riverside Library, 1575 W. 1000 N., 801-594-8632 -Classes are held in the Meeting Room. Rock Band 0 3rd-6th Grades,Wednesday 3-3:50pm ❑7th-lOth Grades,Wednesday 4-4:50pm Visual Art ❑lst-4th Grades,Tuesday 3:30-4:20pm 0 5th-8th Grades,Tuesday 4:30-5:20pm Main Library, 210 E.400 S.,801-524-8200 - Classes are held downstairs in the Children's Area Story Room. Creative Dance ❑K-2nd Grades, Monday 4-4:50pm 0 3rd-6th Grades, Monday 5-5:50pm Sorague Library,2131 S. 1100 E., 801-594-8640- Classes are held downstairs in the Meeting Room. *Colorful Mexico(visual art) ❑K-2nd Grades, Wednesday 5-5:50pm 0 3rd-6th Grades, Wednesday 4-4:50pm *see front side of registration form for details about specialty classes Visual Art ❑K-2nd Grades,Thursday 4-4:50pm 0 3rd-6th Grades,Thursday 5-5:50pm Sweet Library,455 F Street,801-594-8651 -Classes are held in the Meeting Room. Bookmaking ❑K-2nd Grades, Wednesday,4-4:50pm Family Bookmaking ❑K-6th Grades and Parents,Wednesday at 5-5:50pm (register each participating child separately) Low-cost Classes at Community Centers Youth classes are$20 for the session. Parent&Child classes are$30. Parent&Child Ceramics is$40(the additional$10 is for materials). Central City Rec. Center, 610 South 300 East Parent&Child Art 0 11/2-3 Years, Wednesday 9:30-10:20am 0 3'/2-5 Years, Wednesday 10:30-11:20am Parent&Child Art ❑ 1'/2-5 Years,Tuesday 12:15-1:05pm Parent&Child Music ❑ 1'/2-5 Years,Tuesday 9:30-10:20am ❑ 1'/2-5 Years,Tuesday 10:30-11:20am Parent&Child Dance ❑ 2'/2-3'/2 Years Thursday 9:30-10:20am Creative Dance ❑ 3'/2-5 Years,Thursday 10:30-11:20am Animation ❑ 3rd-6th Grades,Wednesday 6-7:30pm Fairmont Park, 1040 East Sugarmont Drive(2200 South)YouthCity Cottage, next to the Fairmont Aquatic Center. Parent&Child Art 0 1'/2-3 Years,Tuesday 9:30-10:20am 0 3'/2-5 Years,Tuesday 10:30-11:20am Parent&Child Music ❑ 1'/2-5 Years,Thursday 9:30-10:20am 0 1'/2-5 Years,Thursday 10:30-11:20am Northwest Multiouroose Center, 1300 West 300 North Beginner Acoustic Guitar ❑ 4th-9th Grades,Tuesday 4-4:50pm 0 4th-9th Grades,Thursday 4-4:50pm Intermediate Acoustic Guitar ❑ 4th-9th Grades,Tuesday 5-5:50pm ❑ 4th-9th Grades,Thursday 5-5:50pm Parent&Child Ceramics ❑ 6-12 Years,Tuesday 4-5:15pm Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center,855 West California Avenue(1300 South) Parent&Child Music ❑ 1'/2-3 Years,Saturday 10-10:50am ❑ 3'/2-5 Years, Saturday 11-11:50am Sorenson Unity Center, 1383 South 900 West Parent&Child Dance ❑ 21/2-3'/2 Years, Wednesday 9:30-10:20am Creative Dance ❑ 3'/2-5 Years, Wednesday 10:30-11:20am Total Class Fees Due$ Student Name Birth Date Gender Parent/Guardian Has your family participated in YouthCity Artways Classes Before? 0 Yes ❑ No Address City Zip Code Day Phone Evening Phone Email Address Emergency Contact Phone Relationship Race (optional):Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Caucasian/White Hispanic Native American Other Legal guardian MUST READ AND SIGN BELOW for child to participate in YouthCity Artways classes: Release&Indemnification:I hereby recognize and acknowledge that my child's participation in recreational activities may involve bodily injury and/or emotional injury to myself and/or child. In consideration of my child being permitted to participate in and benefit from such events,I for myself,my child,my heirs,my executors and administrators,hereby voluntarily and know- ingly release,negligence based on any injury except that caused solely by the willful misconduct of YouthCity Artways/Salt Lake City Corporation,that may result from my child's participation in.I further agree to release Salt Lake City Corporation and its agencies,departments,officers,employees agents,and all sponsors and/or officials and staff of any said entity or person,their representatives,agents affiliates,directors,servants,volunteers,and employees from any and all liability,claims,demands,actions,and causes of actions whatsoever for any loss,claim, damage,injury,illness,attomey's fees or harm of any kind or nature to me or my child or ward arising out of any and all activity associated with the aforementioned activities. Emergency Treatment:I hereby authorize YouthCity Artways program staff to act on my behalf in accordance with their best judgement in case of an emergency involving my child,and agree to assume full responsibility for all expenses,medical,or otherwise,that may arise therefrom.I understand that I or my insurance company will be billed for such emergency treatment. Photo Permission:I give permission for photographs and videotape recordings of my son/daughter's participation in activities with Salt Lake City to be used in promotional materials for this and other partner programs.I understand that these photos and/or videos may be used in brochures,edited video programs,online,and other promotional items for informing interested parties about Salt Lake City activities. By signing this document,I acknowledge that I have read its contents and disclosure,and that I agree to its terms. Office Use: CI Signed ❑Info Entered Parent or Legal Guardian Signature Date by date Grant Funding Information (=rant Funding None—Funded by General Fund,except for Partner Art Works for Kids-$5,000 and Collaborative Programming Dee Foundation-$1,000 Salt Lake City Arts Council-$1,000 Target-$3,000 U.S. Department of Education-$2,825 Utah Arts Council-$2,500 Total Grant Funding-$15,325 • `Partner Program Information Partner Program/Billed Agreements FY 2008-09 Total Billed$30,299 FY 2009-10 Projected Billing$52,776 Salt Lake City/SLCSD—Collaboration— YouthCity After and Summer School Road Home Homeless Shelter,Washington Programs and Artways—Salt Lake City Elementary and Bryant Middle Schools, Lincoln Unites 21st Century Grant Elementary, Ensign Elementary,Tree Utah, Computer Clubhouse,and Salt Lake County Youth Salt Lake City/SLCSD—Billed Agreements Services with Ensign and Lincoln Elementary Schools YouthCity Artways Programs(YCA) Prepared for FY 2011 Budget Discussion The YouthCity Artways program includes three major pieces—Artways Public Classes,Artways Partner Programs and Imagination Celebration. The following chart contains demographic, program,funding, and other comparative data for your consideration. The focus of the analysis is the Artways Public Classes and Imagination Celebration programs. YouthCity Artways Public Classes Imagination Celebration 1 Class and Fee Information Classes Offered—(See Attached) Music, Dance,Visual Arts,Theater, Mural Making, Imagination Celebration provides teacher and New Media workshops,family art workshops,and transportation to Imagination Celebration events within SLCSD. In addition, partnerships, performances,and festivals are offered to program participants. Average Price Per Class—(See Attached) • $20—Youth Classes($2.86 per week) Free to participants. • $30—Parent and Child Class($4.29 per week) Class Session—50 minutes for 7 weeks • Free—All Classes at City Library Branches($0.00 per week) Sliding Fee Scale—Ordinance? • No ordinance with sliding fee scale. Free to participants. • No distinction is made for income level. • Eligibility information is not available. • No price distinction is made between residents and non-residents(non-residents are wait-listed until classes are closed. They are allowed if space is available. Participation Information J� Participation—Children up to 18 • 2006—1,731(Calendar Year) FY 2006—3,194 • 2007—1,529(Calendar Year) FY 2007—2,706 • 2008- 672 (Switch from Calendar to Fiscal Year) FY 2008—3,058 • FY 2009—1,347(Fiscal Year) FY 2009—3,515 • FY 2010—1,208(Fiscal Year) FY 2010—Not yet available Current Year Information—Used in All YCA Public Class Participants-1,208 Participant information is not yet Calculations City Residents- 1,075 available. Non-City Residents- 133 Adult Participation Currently not offered. Adult ceramics had been Teachers, instructors,volunteers, and offered at Sorenson. parents participate in Imagination Celebration. _ Percentage of participants in CDBG •All or a portion CDBG eligible-56% Information not available. eligible areas as defined by census tracts • Not CDBG eligible—34% • Only one tract is CDBG eligible—9% Note: Participant information was provided by zip code. The census tracts were used to estimate CDBG eligibility. Staffing, Cost and Subsidy Information Number of Full-time Staff 3 FTEs Administered by YCA staff and volunteers Number of Part-time Staff 40 part-time employees Administered by YCA staff and volunteers Participant Fee Revenue Collected $22,351 Direct Costs for Program—No Overhead $363,786 Allocated General Fund Subsidy to Program $341,435 General Fund Subsidy(Program Cost— All YCA Public Class Participants-$282.64 All YCA Public Class and Imagina Revenue Received) Celebration Participants- per Participant ($341,435-$15,325/(1,208+3,515)= $69.05 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS -FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 18,2010 SUBJECT: UNRESOLVED &FOLLOW-UP BUDGET ISSUES (2010-11) FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver,Sylvia Richards cc: David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen,Randy Hillier Each year during the budget, staff collects the questions raised by Council Members so that they can be addressed in follow-up briefings. Below is a list of follow-up items or questions that have been raised. Council staff is working with the Administration to provide responses and additional information. This list is primarily intended to inform the Council of the follow-up items. As responses are prepared, they will be added to future briefing reports. Bold italic items indicate topics the Council may wish to discuss further and provide staff with additional direction. If there are other items that the Council would like to add to the list,please let staff know. The schedule for the remaining budget briefings and adoption is provided on the last page. Community & Economic Development 1. Master Plans/Neighborhood Plans - during the briefing and discussion regarding the Mayor's intent to update master plans and neighborhood plans, some Council Members indicated an interest in funding this initiative. 2. Costs for services provided in the Central Business District - several questions have been raised to understand the true cost of the services provided by the City within the Central Business District and Sugar House Business District. (Refer to Public Services section for more detail.) 3. Building Permits Audit 4. New fees for various permits - staff has inquired about various permits or certificates that take time in the Administration to process,but for which a fee is not currently charged. For example: fence permits, accessory structure permits, certificates of Appropriateness in Historic Districts, and possibly others. 5. Fire Plan Review -Due to a miscommunication between the Fire Department and CED, the Fire Plans Examiner and part of the outsourcing funding has been recommended for elimination in the Mayor's budget, but the Fire Department will not be able to pick up the half-FTE workload as was anticipated when this cut was made. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to make a recommendation as to how to resolve this situation without the need for a potential mid-year budget amendment. (During the CED budget discussion, the Administration indicated that although the vacant Fire Plan Review position is proposed to be eliminated, Building Services has adequate trained personnel to respond to the need for fire plan review. In prior discussions with Council staff, CED staff indicated that the Fire Department may be able to assist with fire plan review; however, Fire Administration indicated that the Fire Department does not have the staff to assist or absorb the workload. In addition, the Council may wish to note that CED is proposing to reduce its outsourcing budget by $50,000. The Council may wish to ask whether CED has adequate outsourcing funding, given CED's proposed reduction and the information from the Fire Department. a. Coordination with Salt Lake County -Parking fee - The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the status of discussions with Salt Lake County on the revenue anticipated in this budget relating to the parking fee at public facilities. b. Tax rate - The Council may wish to discuss with the administration the status of conversation on taxes with Salt Lake County Compensation 6. Restoration of the 1.5% Salary Suspension - Based on public comments regarding the salary suspension, some people have requested that the Council keep the salary suspension in effect to either save employee positions (proposed lay-offs) or save other proposed cuts (Global Artways), etc. Library Fund 7. Best Practices study - Does the Council wish to allocate funds from the Library System's unreserved fund balance to pay for a "best practices" study of Library Systems that receive high-use from patrons and that are located in high growth areas? Police Department 8. Fitness for Duty program - the Administration is preparing additional information for the Council to consider the next steps for a Fitness for Duty program in the Police Department. (If the Council decides to proceed with the program,funding would need to be identified.) 9. False Alarm processing and response Public Services Department 10. Costs for services provided to Business Districts - several questions have been raised to understand the true cost of the services provided by the City within the Central Business District and Sugar House Business District. (This overlaps with CED.) Per information previously provided by the Administration, services include: snow removal, sidewalk and planter repairs, graffiti removal, clean-up, trash removal, electrical, and sprinkler repairs. The Administration is providing a more detailed accounting of the costs associated with each of these services. 11. Youth Program Fees - staff is following up on the following information: non-City resident differential,sliding scale, discount criteria and processing. 12. Global Artways 13. Transportation Review Fee - Does the Council wish to exempt Neighborhood Based Organizations or Community Councils or wish to consider a different fee schedule? Currently, all organizations regardless of the size of group or event: $35. There is also a fee of $100 per event being proposed. This will impact community council events. Department of Public Utilities 14. Watershed Land and Water Rights acquisition fund - the Council had discussed the possibility of not appropriating the full $1 million in the Department's annual budget, but possibly processing requests through the periodic budget amendment process. The Council may wish to discuss this further and provide staff with additional direction. 15. Wetland Protection Fee - the Council also discussed possibly implementing a fee to generate revenue toward wetland protection. The Council may wish to discuss this further and provide staff with additional direction. Refuse Fund 16. Rate Structure - staff has requested more information about rates and options from the Administration. 2 17. Options to the mandatory Yard Waste - several residents have voiced opposition to a mandatory yard waste can with the accompanying mandatory fee. The Council may wish to discuss any ideas to address the concerns raised. 18. Fine for cans left out too long-based on comments submitted to the Council Office, some Council Members have voiced support for amending the ordinance to allow for a fine when residents leave garbage cans out too long. 19. Recycling services at City facilities - over the past year, at least two Council Members have inquired about the recycling services provided at City parks and golf courses. This could develop into a legislative intent statement. 20. Recycling requirements for businesses - several Council Members have raised questions about expanding recycling at businesses within the City,and ideas for legislative changes that may tie recycling requirements to business licenses. This could develop into a legislative intent statement. Remaining Budget Schedule: MAY 18 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEMS: - Finance/ Human Resources (former Administrative Services) (SR) - Attorney's Office (LW) - Fire (JB) - Non-Departmental (JB) - Annual Budget PUBLIC HEARING MAY 25 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEMS: - Public Services (KH) (tentative) - Fleet(KH) - Governmental Immunity (RW) - Insurance and Risk Management(RW) - Unresolved Issues (all) - Compensation (SR) TUNE 1 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEMS: - IMS (SR) - Justice Court(SR) - Unresolved Issues (all) - Legislative Intents/ Interim Study Report(LW) - CIP-time-sensitive projects only (JB) - (Budget Amendment No. 4-Public Hearing) TUNE 8 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEMS: - Unresolved Issues (if needed-all) - Property tax numbers MAY be final be this point(June 8th is date required by state) - Briefing on Tax Anticipation Notes - Adopt Annual budget if possible - (Budget Amendment No. 4-Action Item) 3 DUNE 15 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEMS: - Adopt Annual budget if not possible to adopt on June 8 - Action on Tax Anticipation Notes DUNE 22 Council Meeting (not a regularly-scheduled meeting) AGENDA ITEMS: - Last day possible to adopt budget 4 Streets Response Trouble Calls The Streets Response Team receives and responds to Trouble Calls on a daily basis. Many of these calls include downed "STOP"signs, downed trees and tree limbs, hazardous road way conditions, Icy road conditions, road plates that have been displaced, and missed garbage. Team members often assist the Fire and Police Departments in various ways to ensure their safety and the safety of the public. Included is a small sampling of some specific Trouble Calls the team has handled. • Incident reported by: SLC Police Department Location:500 E. South Temple Problem: Holes in a brick crosswalk causing vehicles to swerve to avoid holes and causing a hazard to pedestrians. Resolution:Team member filled holes with cold patch will follow up by e-mailing the proper persons for repair on Monday. • Incident reported by:SLC Police Department Location: 1300 E 500 S Problem: Debris in the road from a major accident involving UTA truck and TRAX. Resolution:Team member removed large debris then swept remaining glass. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire and Police Departments Location:West Temple, 100-200 South Problem: Four alarm fire. Excessive water on roads and sidewalks was freezing making ice, making it difficult for the Fire and Police to do their job, as they were slipping and falling. Resolution: Team member arrived on scene with a salt truck and proceeded to salt the roadways and then salted the sidewalks by hand. Stayed on scene for approximately 7 hours ensuring the water did not continue to freeze. Followed up for the next 2 days salting when needed. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location: 1423 S 2965 E Problem: Fire Department required equipment to build a fire containment wall. Resolution: Team Member brought in the required equipment, made a dirt road wider for equipment to pass, and helped the Fire Department build the 5 mile containment wall. • Incident reported by:SLC Police Department Location: 1019 W Signora (700 N) Problem:The front door to a home was kicked in during a home robbery. Door needs to be boarded up. The elderly home owner is unable to do it themselves. Resolution:Team member went to the home, measured the opening and boarded the door opening to help ensure no one could enter the home unwanted. Streets Response Trouble Calls • Incident reported by:SLC Resident Location:809 N Sir Phillip Problem: Resident complained that water coming from the street was flooding her basement. Resolution:Team member acquired 36 total sandbags from the water department and set them up in front of 3 different houses. Followed up with water department to make sure the water problem was taken care of to avoid further flooding and damage. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location:400 S, 1000-1100 E Problem:The road, which is a steep incline, was iced over. Fire Department was unable to get up the hill to a fire. Resolution: Team member arrived in salt truck and salted the roadway several times, able to get road free from ice to allow fire department access to the fire. • Incident reported by:SLC Police Department Location: Liberty Park Problem:Young child went missing in the neighborhood vicinity, police wanted to clear the park, thinking she could have gotten locked in one of the bathrooms. Resolution: Team member checked each bathroom.They did not have a key to all of the bathrooms, so the ones he did not have keys to; he took the doors off the hinges. • Incident reported by: Motorist Location: 1300 S Overpass Problem:One of the steel joints on the bridge came loose and was sticking up in the air causing a serious traffic hazard in the roadway. Resolution:Team member shut down one lane of travel while they cut the steel at the joint and replaced with cold asphalt patch. The team member followed up by notifying Streets Department manager informing him of the repair that was made and had them check to see if any further work needed to be done. • Incident reported by: SLC Police Department Location:700 S Main St. Problem:A very large Master Muffler logo sign had blown over in a wind storm into the road blocking 700 S causing TRAX train and motorists unable to pass. Resolution: Team member was able to get the sign towed back into the Master Muffler parking lot then cleared the roadway of remaining debris allowing traffic access again. s I Streets Response Trouble Calls • Incident reported by: SLC Resident Wilbur Heymann Location:800 S 800 E Problem: Reported that ice was blocking access to the pedestrian crosswalk.The resident is in a motorized wheelchair and is unable to cross over the ice. Resolution:Team member salted the street,and then salted the sidewalk by hand.They also cleared all of the ice and snow with a shovel to clear the path to the crosswalk. • Incident reported by: SLC Police Department and Citizen Location: Liberty Park Problem: Report of dead and dying ducks around the pond and in the park. Resolution:Team member talked to the park manager and was informed that the ducks had a disease and were dying.Team member went to the park and cleared the ducks from the pond and the surrounding area. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location:Approximate 1-80 and 4000 W(eastbound) Problem:There was a brush fire that required a loader to move the dirt around to contain and extinguish the fire. Resolution:Team member arrived with loader and assisted the Fire Department in extinguishing many of the fire's hot spots with dirt. • Incident reported by: SLC Resident Beverly Williams Location: 1980 S 900 W Problem: Reported that there was a pipe in the road that had blown out her tire. Team member arrived and located a water cover that had been flipped out of its hole and had gotten wedged upside down causing a serious road hazard. Resolution: Team member was able to pry the cove out and reinserted it in its hole correctly. • Incident reported by:SLC Police Department Location:500 N Columbus Problem: Mud and rock slide ran into the roadway blocking traffic. Resolution:Team member closed off the intersection and removed the slide debris from the roadway with a loader. Followed up by e-mailing the Streets managers to monitor the slide situation. t Streets Response Trouble Calls • Incident reported by:Tracy Aviary Staff Location: Liberty Park Problem:A large tree had fallen onto a main exterior fence. It also damaged several animal containment units. Resolution:Team member cut and removed the tree. They helped the Aviary staff to repair all the fences so that the animals could not get loose. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location:620 S 300 W Problem:There had been a structure fire and the building had been deemed a total loss. The building was unstable and the Fire department asked for help in bringing the remnants of the building down. Resolution:Team member arrived with a loader and assisted in leveling the building to the ground. • Incident reported by: SLC Resident Location:942 N Church Hill Problem: Report of 3 very large boulders blocking the roadway and causing a traffic hazard. Resolution:Team member arrived with a loader and moved the rocks from the road. • Incident reported by:SLC Resident Location:A St. 9Th Avenue, Memory Grove Trail Problem: Report that rocks were falling onto the pedestrian pathway causing a hazard to those walking the trail. Resolution:Team member barricaded off the trail and notified Parks Department manager so they can assess the cause of the falling rocks. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location:350 W Pierpont Ave Problem: Report that a pedestrian walkway had collapsed injuring several people. Resolution:Team member barricaded and taped off the entrances to the walkway to prevent others from entering. • Incident reported by: SLC Resident Location:526 E 11th Ave Problem:A tree from the city park strip had fallen down blocking an elderly man's driveway hindering his ability to leave his house. Resolution:Team member cleared the tree from the driveway and roadway and cut up and piled the tree onto the park strip. Followed up by e-mailing Urban Forestry so they could come clear the pile. . , Streets Response Trouble Calls • Incident reported by:SLC Police Department Location:SLC Main Library Problem: Report that a large statue had been tipped over by some kids. Resolution:Team members put the statue in the back of a truck and took back to the parks department so that they could repair it. • Incident reported by:SLC Resident Location:Donner Park and Nearby Condominiums Problem:A park water pipe had burst and had been spewing water for several hours.The water had flooded the basement of one of the residents of the condominiums. Resolution:Team member shut off all the valves to immediately stop the flow of the water.The team member acquired a pump from the water department and pumped the water out of the basement. Team member was in contact with the parks department throughout the incident. They were able to fix the pipe the following work day. • Incident reported by: SLC Police Department Location:2200 W California Problem:Fatal Car accident had caused a gravel truck to lose its load over the span of 4 blocks, making the street unusable for all lanes of travel. Resolution: Team members arrived on scene with two broom trucks.The road had already been blocked off by the Police Department.The team members swept up the gravel over the span of 6 hours clearing the road and put the gravel back into the truck, at the request of the Fire and Police departments. • Incident reported by:SLC Fire Department Location:700 S 4400 W Problem:There had been a fire the previous day,there were still smoldering piles of wood that the fire department need access to. Resolution:Team member took a loader to the scene and leveled out smoldering piles of wood so that the Fire Department had access to completely extinguish the fire. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: Apri113,2010 SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Water,Sewer,Stormwater Funds STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis,Rusty Vetter,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier The Department of Public Utilities has prepared a budget for the Council's review,which includes a combined Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay budget of$118,252,132 for the water, sewer and stormwater funds. Public Utilities Department 2010-11 Water,Sewer,Stormwater Budgets Amended Proposed 2009-10 2010-11 Difference %Change Revenue&other sources Services Revenue $ 71,802,000 $ 77,402,350 $ 5,600,350 7.8% Interest Income 770,000 650,000 $ (120,000) -15.6% Impact Fees 1,050,000 1,050,000 $ - 0.0% Bond Proceeds - 13,000,000 $ 13,000,000 Use of cash reserves 44,049,264 21,361,782 $(22,687,482) -51.5% Other Various Revenue Sources 4,600,450 4,788,000 $ 187,550 4.1% Total revenue&other sources $122,271,714 $118,252,132 $ (4,019,582) -3.3% Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 24,855,469 $ 25,077,863 $ 222,394 0.9% Materials&supplies 4,036,505 4,078,555 $ 42,050 1.0% Charges for services 29,931,214 31,429,464 $ 1,498,250 5.0% Total operating expenses $ 58,823,188 $ 60,585,882 $ 1,762,694 3.0% Capital improvement 53,055,126 46,406,250 $ (6,648,876) -12.5% Vehicles&equipment 5,108,400 4,975,000 $ (133,400) -2.6% Debt Services 5,285,000 6,285,000 $ 1,000,000 18.9% Total Operating Expenses&Capital Outlay $122,271,714 $118,252,132 $ (4,019,582) -3.3% This report includes some overall key points to the Department budget,and then provides some information specific to each fund. The Department of Public Utilities has also provided information and background on their Watershed Land and Water Rights purchase program.A brief memo is attached for that item(Attachment A). OVERALL KEY POINTS • Rate increases-For 2010-11,the proposed budget includes a rate increase in each of the three funds,as follows: 1.x s OCl a 1 I'1,. ! d i. s , Water Sewer Stormwater Total 4,-;771 Y 'a-�,�. Y''l-•^(a ft iF?>:�.,1�-.r a 4'�s ' �:F; Average Residential 12.77 5.76 2.88 $ 21.41 Manufacturin./Industrial 5,680.39 2,434.00 438.00 $ 8,552.39 As the Council may remember,the Department did not originally propose any rate increases last year, but did end up working with the Council to implement a rate increase for the stormwater fund.(That rate increase was effective January 1,2010.) • Water Rate Structure-The proposed budget includes adding a fourth tier to the Summer water - rates,as suggested by the Community Group and Public Utilities Advisory Committee.More information is provided below in the section specific to the Water Utility(page 4). • Impact of Rate Increases to the General Fund-The rate increases in each of the utility funds will have a negative impact on the General Fund. The 5% water rate increase will cost the General Fund$121,955;the 4.5%sewer increase will cost$4,495 more;and the 6%stormwater increase will cost$4,567. This totals a$131,017 increase. However the rate increases will also increase franchise fee revenue to the General fund in the amount of$147,150 for an overall positive effect of$16,133. • Capital Improvement Budget - The three budgets all include capital improvement projects totaling $46,406,250. The Department has estimated that the favorable bidding climate has contributed to a savings of approximately$18.8 million capital project costs.What is estimated to cost$50.8 million to build in 2011 could cost as much as$69.6 million to build in 2015. • Future Fiscal Impacts-Each of the funds rely heavily on the use of reserve funds to maintain the capital programs.This practice,even with modest rate increases,contributes to a shortfall in future years where needed capital improvements outpace revenues and cash-on-hand. • Personal Services Budgets - Since the Department presents their budget to the Mayor and Council before the General Fund, the personal services budget is generally tentative. They follow what the General Fund and other budgets provide for employees,in terms of salary adjustments and insurance splits.Most of the Department's employees(77%)are 100 and 200 series employees with pay increases negotiated between the City and the American Federation of State County&Municipal Employees Local 1004(AFSCME).In keeping with this,there are no proposed salary increases for employees.However,insurance costs did increase 11%across all three funds.This will be split with employees. 26%is paid by employees and 74%by the City. This may change as the Mayor's recommended budget is finalized, and any necessary changes can be made prior to budget adoption. Retirement payments have also increased by 17%. 2 QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION As Council Members read this budget,you may want to keep two questions in mind: 1. As the General Fund has struggled with the economic crunch,the Department of Public Utilities has tried to help mitigate any impact. For example, last year one major consideration for delaying rate increases was because of the impact to the General Fund departments that would pay the increased rates as well.In addition,on page 57 of the Department's transmittal,there is a list of charges from other City funds to the Department of Public Utilities.The Council may wish to ask what the full impact has been to the Department of Public Utilities. 2. Although the rate increases help to defray the reliance on each fund's cash reserves,the Council may wish to inquire about increasing the use of reserve funds or reducing capital improvement projects in the proposed budget to further delay a rate increase.The Council may also wish to inquire whether there would be an estimate for how a delay would affect future rate increases. For a more detailed view of each fund's budget,please see the following pages. 3 WATER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 The operating budget for the Water Enterprise Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be $44,882,576,which is an increase of$1,410,397,or 3.2%. WATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended ' :po" Percent 2009-10 -`010-1 ,...,.. Difference Change Revenue&other sources Charges for seances $ 50,057,000 52,559,850 2,502,850 5.0% Interest income 370,000 300,000 (70,000) -18.9% Inter-fund charges 2,389,450 2,591,000 201,550 8.4% Sale of used equipment 50,000 50,000 - 0.0% Impact fees 500,000 500,000 - 0.0% Grants and Other related 905,000 905,000 - 0.0% revenues Bond proceeds - - - #DIV/0! Use of cash reserves 15,078,189 9,611,976 (5,466,213) -36.3% Total revenue&other $ 69,349,639;' s. 66,517,826 (2,831,813) -4.1% sources Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 16,313,790 $ 16,301,187 (12,603) -0.1% Materials&supplies 2,702,495 2 2,760,545 58,050 2.1% Charges for services 24,455,894 j 25,820,844 1,364,950 5.6% Total operating $ 43,472,179)F$ 44,882,576 1,410,397 3.2% expenses Capital improvement 20,620,160 16,740,250 (3,879,910) -18.8% Vehicles&equipment 2,507,300`r. 2,145,000 (362,300) -14.4% Debt Services 2,750,000 2,750,000 - 0.0% Total Operating Expenses $ 69,349,639 $ 66,517,826 (2,831,813) -4.1% &Capital Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budgets for the Water Fund include: Revenue Items: • Water Rates-there are two components affecting water rates for 2010-11: • Rate Increase:The proposed budget includes a five percent rate increase,which would generate an additional$2,502,850 in rate revenue. • Rate Structure:The Council may recall that over the past few budget years,the Department has discussed the need to review the rate structure and consider changes.A community group was convened to work with the consultant and generated some recommendations, which were reviewed by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee(PUAC). From that process came the recommendation to add a fourth tier to the water summer rates to capture some of the highest water users,and ideally encourage more conservation.The fourth tier would affect customers who use over 70 ccf in the month. Generally, these are the customers with larger landscaped areas. That would primarily affect eastside and county 4 customers.Water wise landscaping and other conservation measures can help water customers avoid paying the fourth tier prices. In comparing the effect of the proposed rate increase to the current rate structure,versus a four- tier structure,only the highest users are impacted. (Refer to page 50 in the Administration's transmittal.) The Council may elect to not implement the fourth tier. Although most of the community group members and PUAC members were supportive,there were a few comments in opposition. • Use of Reserve Funds-$9,611,976 of reserve funds will be used toward capital projects this year. The cash balance after use of these reserve funds will be$13,387,594.The Department has a cash reserve(or fund balance)target of 10%of operating expenses.The$13,387,594 would be 30%of the 2010-11 operating expenses. The healthy reserve balance has been critical to the Department's ability to sustain the capital improvement program during these tough economic times.At the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09,the cash reserves totaled$37,877,759.Based on future year projections,by the end of 2012-13,it would be at$8,458,795(or 18%of operating expenses). • Other Revenue Items- • Interfund Charges:The Department is increasing their charge to the Sewer,Stormwater,and Refuse Funds for the billing service provided.This will increase the water fund's revenue by $201,550. • Interest Income:Decrease by$70,000 as the Fund's cash reserves decrease. Operating Expense Items: • Metropolitan Water District-Between the budget to purchase water from Metro and the annual assessment for the Metro capital projects,the City pays $18,190,892 to Metro each year. This is roughly 40%of the Water Fund's operating budget. • Purchase of Water from Metropolitan Water District:The largest increase to Water operating expenses is due to the purchase price for water from the Metropolitan Water District.For the proposed fiscal year,the average rate per acre foot will increase to$219,which is a$6 increase per acre foot over last year. Metro implemented a seasonal rate last year,and the$219 per acre foot averages the amount of water purchased at the winter rate,$113,and the summer rate, $330. In addition to the per unit cost increase,the Department is also planning to purchase 51,000 acre feet this year,up from 48,000 in the past few years. Both of these factors result in an increase to the budget of$945,000. To take advantage of the seasonal rate structure,the Department intends to purchase additional water in the winter to reduce usage of City wells. 5 The MWD has raised the rates for the past several years and anticipates rate increases in the coming years as well. Historical Future Rate (per Planned Year acre foot) Rates 2004-05 $150 2005-06 $163 2006-07 $175 2007-08 $188 2008-09 $200 2009-10 $213 2011-12 $226 (3%) 2012-13 $233 (3%) 2013-14 $240 (3%) 2014-15 $247 (3%) 2015-16 $254 (3%) • Annual assessments for the Metropolitan Water District Capital Improvements:In addition to the purchase of water, the department pays a $7 million assessment for Metropolitan Water District capital improvements.These payments continue in 2010-11,and will continue for the next 23 years. Sandy City is also making assessment payments to the Metropolitan Water District for their share of project costs. The Metropolitan Water District budget is set by the Metro Water District Board. The Council has the opportunity to review the budget and give feedback,but does not approve the budget. One significant change to the Council's role in the Metro budget was made in this year's Legislative Session. For tax increases after January 1,2015,the City Councils of Salt Lake and Sandy cities will be the taxing authority and a vote by the Councils will be necessary in order to approve a property tax increase. More information on the legislative changes will be addressed in a report prepared on the Metro budget later in May. • Personal Services-(Overall decrease of$12,603) Increase (Decrease) Description $229,461 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 234,504 Increase to insurance costs(11%) (399,022) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) (63,521) Decrease due to classification changes (14,025) Transfer of.5 FTE to the Stormwater Fund 6 • Materials and Supplies(increase of$58,050 or 2.2%)-The increase is due to the cost for recycled paper forms,and the postage rate. • Charges for Services(increase of$1,364,950 or 5.6%)-Charges for services is budgeted to increase by 5.6%largely due to the increase in cost of water from the Metropolitan Water District already discussed.The other larger changes include: Increase/ (Decrease) Description $223,000 Risk Management Premiums-their insurance agency raised premiums based on dam risk. 45,600 Utility Costs 34,000 Bus Pass(to include FrontRunner) 30,000 Utah Lake costs 87,350 Other items(admin fees,evasive weed grant, data processing,communication,various. Capital Budget The following is included in the budget for capital improvements and purchases for fiscal year 2010-11. • Capital Outlay-Vehicles&Equipment(decrease of$362,300 or 14%)-The$2,145,000 budgeted for capital purchases allows the department to replace the necessary vehicles and make treatment plant purchases as needed. For vehicles,some necessary heavy equipment replacements will be made, and other vehicles will be replaced with an emphasis on fuel efficiency. • Continuation of the existing capital improvement program- This budget of$16.7 million is in addition to the assessments for the Metropolitan Water District capital improvements. Proposed Water Capital Improvement Program 2010-11 Replacement of water lines and hydrants $ 7,939 250 --. Land Purchases(watershed purchases) $ 1,000,000 Reservoirs $ 555,000 Service Line Replacement&new connection $ 2,200,000 Treatment Plants $ 704,000 Pumping Plant Upgrades $ 1,150,000 Maintenance Buildings $ 745,000 Water meter replacement $ 100,000 Meter change out program $ 800,000 Culverts,flumes&bridges $ 510,000 Landscaping _ $ 432,000 Wells $ 575,000 Water stock purchases $ 30,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $16,740,250 The Department has decreased the budget for Capital Improvement projects by$3.9 million. 7 - Waterline replacement program-The Department plans to replace 34,000 feet of pipe(or 6.44 miles!). - Water valve replacement-increase funding by$1 million for replacements and increasing the number of valves - - this will reduce the time households go without water during shut downs and main breaks,because the area affected by water shut-offs will be more limited. - Water meter replacement program-As water meters age,they begin to inaccurately measure water use(under read). The Department has determined that it is cost effective to replace meters that are 15 years old. During the past five years,the Department has replaced 59,000 meters with about 22,000 of these being radio reading devices. The radio-read meters are primarily in hilly areas and where meters are more spaced out or remote. Overall, the technology for radio-read meters is changing-while the cost of reading the radio meters is cheaper,the cost for the meter itself is still more than regular meters.As technology continues to develop and prices go down,the radio-read meters will become more cost-effective.One example of this is that when the radio-read meters were first installed,the batteries would only last about five years,but technology has continued to evolve and batteries are lasting closer to 10 years. For more information about the Watershed Land fund,please see attachment A for a brief memo.A transmittal from the Administration is also included in your packets. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about future projects that might require bonding. 2. The Council may wish to ask what percentage of users will see the most drastic increase to their monthly bill due to the rate increases and rate restructuring. 8 SEWER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 The operating budget for the Sewer Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be$11,835,189 which is an increase of$309,349 or 2.7%over fiscal year 2009-10. The capital budget,including debt service,is proposed to be$29,670,000. SEWER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Proposed Percent 2009-10 2010-11 Difference Change Revenue&other sources Sewer service fees $ 16,500,000 $17,242,500 $742,500 4.5% Interest income 250,000 250,000 $0 0.0% Permits 85,000 70,000 ($15,000) -17.6% Impact fees 350,000 350,000 $0 0.0% Other 645,000 655,000 $10,000 1.6% Bond Proceeds - 13,000,000 $13,000,000 Use of cash reserves 20,075,040 9,937,689 ($10,137,351) -50.5% Total revenue&other $ 37,905,040 $ 41,505,189 $3,600,149 9.5% sources Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 6,764,583 6953632 $189,049 2.8% Materials&supplies 1,221,310 $1,205,310 ($16,000) -1.3% Charges for services 3,539,947 3,676,247 $136,300 3.9% Total Operating Expenses $ 11,525,840 $ 11,835,189 $309,349 2.7% Capital improvement 21,945,100 $ 24,490,500 $2,545,400 11.6% Vehicles&equipment 2,499,100 2,244,500 ($254,600) -10.2% Debt Sertices 1,935,000 2,935,000 $1,000,000 51.7% Total Operating Expenses $ 37,905,040 $ 41,505,189 $3,600,149 9.5% &Capital Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budgets for the Sewer Fund include: Revenue Items: • Rate Increase-A rate increase of 4.5%is proposed for 2010-11.This would generate approximately $742,500 in additional revenue. Rate revenue is based on the water usage during winter months, since that is generally the usage attributable to indoor water use,including showers,dishwashers, etc. (which constitutes waste water). Therefore, these revenues are generally tied to the rate of users'conservation. 4%rate increases are planned for each of the next four years. • Use of Reserve Funds-$9,937,689 in reserve funds will be used toward capital projects. • Bond Proceeds- In order to accelerate the rehabilitation of the Orange Street Trunk Line to the treatment plant, the Department proposes issuing$10 million in bonds. In addition, earlier this year,the Council processed a bond issuance for$6.3 million for a digester cover replacement project -this was the zero interest bond offered by the State using Stimulus Grant funds. The funding for this project will be spread over three years.For 2010-11,$3 million will be budgeted. 9 Operating Expense Items: • Personal Services-(Overall increase of$189,049) Increase/ (Decrease) Description $93,486 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 98,5% Increase to insurance costs(11%) 98,436 Increase for employees hired at a trainee pay level,and are moving up to higher pay levels (101,469) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) • Materials and Supplies (overall decrease of $16,000) - There is an anticipated decrease in instrumentation repair and supplies. • Charges for Services(overall increase of$136,300)-This increase is due to: Increase/ (Decrease) Description $52,500 Increase to the Administrative Fees paid to the General Fund 40,000 Data Processing charges 32,500 Professional&Technical Services 15,000 Bus Pass(to include FrontRunner) (3,700) Various other increases/decreases Capital Budget The proposed budget reflects a total capital budget of$29,670,000 for capital improvement projects, vehicle&equipment purchases,and debt service. • Capital Improvement Projects(increase of$2.5 million) Proposed Capital Improvement Program Sewer Fund 2010-11 Collection Lines $15,155,500 Treatment Plant $ 8,200,000 Maintenance&repair shops $ 975,000 Lift Stations $ 160,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $24,490,500 • There are two major projects for the Sewer Fund: • Upgrade to the Orange Street Trunk Line, which is a collector line directly to the Treatment Plant.A portion of the line collapsed last year,and caused a new urgency to 10 upgrade the line.This will be a$10 million project and the Department intends to issue bonds to pay for the project. • Toward the end of 2009,the Council processed a bond issuance for a zero-interest bond with the State for a$6.3 million digester cover replacement project.A$3 million portion of that project will begin in 2010-11. This project is now expanded to include the replacement of the digester walls due to determination which will increase the total cost of the project to$8 million. • Over the last two years,the Department has conducted a"Sewer Master Plan Study".The results of the study provided a condition assessment of the sewer lines throughout the City, and a management plan for the repair or replacement to improve system capacity. • In addition to these major projects,the Fund will replace 30,100 linear feet of pipe. • Vehicle& Equipment Purchases ($254,600 decrease)-The budget is$2,244,500 for vehicles and equipment,including trucks,dump trucks,and other maintenance&plant equipment. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask whether the phase of the Sewer Master Plan Study has been completed addressing growth and planning citywide,specifically for the Northwest Quadrant. 2. A few Council Members may have had a chance to tour the upgrade to the 1800 North sewer line.The technique used to repair the line is a new technology.The Council may wish to ask for more information about the project. 11 STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 The operating budget for the Stormwater Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be$3,868,117, which is an increase of$42,948 or 1.1% over fiscal year 2009-10.The capital budget, including debt service,is proposed to be$6,361,000. STORMWATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Difference Percent 2009-10 Change Revenue&other sources Stormwater service fee $5,245,000 $2,355,000 44.90% County Flood Control Interest 150,000 ($50,000) -33.33% Impact fees 200,000 $0 0.00% Systems constructed by 516,000 $0 0.00% developers Other revenue 10,000 ($9,000) -90.00% Use of reserves 8,896,035 ($7,083,918) -79.63% Total revenue&other sources $15,017,035 ($4,787,918) -31.88% Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $1,777,096 $45,948 2.59% Materials&supplies 112,700 $0 0.00% Charges for services 1,935,373 ($3,000) -0.16% Total operating expenses $ 3,825,169 $42,948 1.12% Capital improvement 10,489,866 ($5,314,366) -50.66% Vehicles&equipment 102,000 $483,500 474.02% Debt Service 600,000 $0 0.00% Total Expenses&Capital $15,017,035 ($4,787,918) -31.88 Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budget for the Storm Water Fund include: Revenue Items: • Rate Increase - Last year, even before the decision to adopt a mid-year rate increase for the Stormwater fund, the Department had already planned for future year increases. This year, the budget includes a proposed 6%increase.The intention of the Department is that the larger increase this year would eliminate the need for an increase for the next few years. The Administration had raised the likelihood of this rate increase,to pay for the Stormwater pieces of the North Temple project-namely,the design of completing the Folsom Avenue conduit from 250 West to the Jordan River.This will serve to divert City Creek flows and alleviate the likelihood of flooding along North Temple. The 6% increase generates$460,000 in additional revenue. The remaining$1,895,000 in revenue increase is due to recognizing a full year of revenue from the$1.00 increase effective January 1, 2010. 12 • Use of reserves-Using the$1,812,117 from reserves would leave the balance at$3,998,221. Current forecasts do not show use of reserves during 2011-12 or 2012-13.The Council may wish to ask if there are more capital projects that could be completed using the cash on hand.This$3.99 million in cash reserves also takes into account that the projected actual use of reserves for this year will be closer to$4.5 million rather than the$8.9 million in the amended budget. Operating Expense Items: • Personal Services-(Overall increase of$45,948) Increase/ (Decrease) Description $25,208 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 25,672 Increase to insurance costs(11%) 14,025 Increase for employee transferred from the Water Fund 5,962 Classification changes (24,919) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) • Charges for Services(decrease of$3,000)-The change to this category is small.However,one item of note,is$100,000 in continuing budget for the Riparian Corridor Study.$600,000 was originally budgeted for the project,and this final amount should bring the study phase to completion. The current study area is for City Creek and Parley's.Red Butte and Emigration Creeks are complete and projects are being identified based on the study results. There is $450,000 included in the Stormwater capital budget for Riparian Corridor related projects. Capital Budget The proposed budget reflects a total capital budget of$6,361,000 for capital improvement projects, vehicle(Sr equipment purchases,and debt service. • Capital Improvement Projects(increase of$382,000) The proposed budget reflects a capital improvement budget of$4,290,000 for fiscal year 2009-10, which is a 9.7%increase from last year. Proposed Capital Improvement Program Storm Water Fund 2010-11 Collection Lines(28,100 feet of pipe) $4,435,500 Lift Stations $ 290,000 Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 450,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $5,175,500 13 QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about the Riparian Corridor Improvements. The residents involved with the study have raised several questions,and as expected,several projects have been identified. The Council may inquire how the administration of those projects will be handled,including whether staffing may be needed,funding will be budgeted each year in the future,and if so,for how long. 2. During the regional athletic complex discussion, some of the Council Members expressed interest in considering establishing a fund for riparian preservation and restoration,similar to the watershed fund.The Council may wish to discuss whether there is interest in considering this mechanism now or at some future date. 3. The Council continues to receive complaints from citizens about significant drainage issues in Districts 1,2 and 6.The Council may wish to ask how the Department is handling major street drainage issues and whether there is a long-term capital plan to address such issues. 14 Additional Information WATER BACKGROUND Salt Lake City's water delivery system to City and County residents depends on a complex network of dams, aqueducts, water treatment plants, distribution reservoirs, and water mains. Upkeep and maintenance of older systems and construction of new systems is very costly. The Department of Public Utilities has over 91,000 water service connections. The Department maintains treatment plants, wells,reservoirs,1,222 miles of water mains,and 178 miles of conduit and supply lines. Water Sources-For the 2008-09 water year(July to June;last full year available),below is a chart of sources for City water. The total used was 97,175 acre feet. (Note: the water from Little Cottonwood,Deer Creek,and CUP was delivered by Metro Water.) Water Sources 2008-09 Water Year City Creek,7% 401/41/4. Groundwater, 8% Little Cottonwood, 12% SEWER FUND BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities has over 49,340 sewer connections. The Sewer Fund maintains 641 miles of sanitary sewer pipe and connection lines. The reclamation plant treats an average of 35,000,000 gallons of sanitary sewer per day. Maintaining the sewer lines and operating the lift stations and reclamation plant is accomplished with 99.85 employees. Effective January 1, 2001,sewer fees were based on discharge strength as well as volume. Approximately 2,500 of the 49,340 accounts are charged an additional fee because they discharge sewage with strengths greater than domestic or residential sewer flows. This change sets rates so that residential customers or commercial customers with domestic discharges do not subsidize customers with greater than domestic strength discharges. This rate structure encourages businesses to reduce discharge strengths. 15 STORM WATER BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities maintains over 470 miles of stormwater pipe and collection lines using 27.45 employees. It was 1991 when the General Fund transferred the entire storm drain system under Public Utilities management. July 1991 began the implementation of a new stormwater fee based on surface area. This last January was the first time rates have increased since 1991.No public tax dollars have been used to help the system. Stormwater employees also monitor the snow pack water content and manage the stormwater permit process. 16 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: April 13,2010 SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Water,Sewer,Stormwater Funds STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis,Rusty Vetter,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier The Department of Public Utilities has prepared a budget for the Council's review,which includes a combined Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay budget of$118,252,132 for the water,sewer and stormwater funds. Public Utilities Department 2010-11 Water,Sewer,Stormwater Budgets Amended Proposed 2009-10 2010-11 Difference %Change Revenue&other sources Services Revenue $ 71,802,000 $ 77,402,350 $ 5,600,350 7.8% Interest Income 770,000 650,000 $ (120,000) -15.6% ` Impact Fees 1,050,000 1,050,000 $ - 0.0% Bond Proceeds - 13,000,000 $ 13,000,000 Use of cash reserves 44,049,264 21,361,782 $(22,687,482) -51.5% Other Various Revenue Sources 4,600,450 4,788,000 $ 187,550 4.1% Total revenue&other sources $122,271,714 $118,252,132 $ (4,019,582) -3.3% Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 24,855,469 $ 25,077,863 $ 222,394 0.9% Materials&supplies 4,036,505 4,078,555 $ 42,050 1.0% Charges for services 29,931,214 31,429,464 $ 1,498,250 5.0% Total operating expenses $ 58,823,188 $ 60,585,882 $ 1,762,694 3.0% Capital improvement 53,055,126 46,406,250 $ (6,648,876) -12.5% Vehicles&equipment 5,108,400 4,975,000 $ (133,400) -2.6% Debt Services 5,285,000 6,285,000 $ 1,000,000 18.9% Total Operating Expenses&Capital Outlay $122,271,714 $118,252,132 $ (4,019,582) -3.3% This report includes some overall key points to the Department budget,and then provides some information specific to each fund. The Department of Public Utilities has also provided information and background on their Watershed Land and Water Rights purchase program.A brief memo is attached for that item(Attachment A). G OVERALL KEY POINTS • • Rate increases-For 2010-11,the proposed budget includes a rate increase in each of the three funds,as follows: Amount of Increase PER YEAR Water Sewer Stormwater Total Small Residential 6.00 2.88 2.88 $ 11.76 Average Residential 12.77 5.76 2.88 $ 21.41 Apartment 955.31 252.00 207.36 $ 1,414.67 Manufacturing/Industrial 5,680.39 2,434.00 438.00 $ 8,552.39 Commercial 1,827.45 28.51 60.00 $ 1,915.96 As the Council may remember,the Department did not originally propose any rate increases last year, but did end up working with the Council to implement a rate increase for the stormwater fund.(That rate increase was effective January 1,2010.) • Water Rate Structure-The proposed budget includes adding a fourth tier to the Summer water rates,as suggested by the Community Group and Public Utilities Advisory Committee.More information is provided below in the section specific to the Water Utility(page 4). • Impact of Rate Increases to the General Fund-The rate increases in each of the utility funds will have a negative impact on the General Fund. The 5% water rate increase will cost the General Fund$121,955;the 4.5%sewer increase will cost$4,495 more;and the 6%stormwater increase will cost$4,567. This totals a$131,017 increase. However the rate increases will also increase franchise fee revenue to the General fund in the amount of$147,150 for an overall • positive effect of$16,133. • Capital Improvement Budget - The three budgets all include capital improvement projects totaling$46,406,250. The Department has estimated that the favorable bidding climate has contributed to a savings of approximately$18.8 million capital project costs.What is estimated to cost$50.8 million to build in 2011 could cost as much as$69.6 million to build in 2015. • Future Fiscal Impacts-Each of the funds rely heavily on the use of reserve funds to maintain the capital programs.This practice,even with modest rate increases,contributes to a shortfall in future years where needed capital improvements outpace revenues and cash-on-hand. • Personal Services Budgets -Since the Department presents their budget to the Mayor and Council before the General Fund, the personal services budget is generally tentative. They follow what the General Fund and other budgets provide for employees, in terms of salary adjustments and insurance splits.Most of the Department's employees(77%)are 100 and 200 series employees with pay increases negotiated between the City and the American Federation of State County&Municipal Employees Local 1004(AFSCME).In keeping with this,there are no proposed salary increases for employees.However,insurance costs did increase 11%across all three funds.This will be split with employees. 26%is paid by employees and 74%by the City. This may change as the Mayor's recommended budget is finalized,and any necessary changes can be made prior to budget adoption. Retirement payments have also increased by 17%. V 2 QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION CAs Council Members read this budget,you may want to keep two questions in mind: 1. As the General Fund has struggled with the economic crunch,the Department of Public Utilities has tried to help mitigate any impact. For example, last year one major consideration for delaying rate increases was because of the impact to the General Fund departments that would pay the increased rates as well.In addition,on page 57 of the Department's transmittal,there is a list of charges from other City funds to the Department of Public Utilities.The Council may wish to ask what the full impact has been to the Department of Public Utilities. 2. Although the rate increases help to defray the reliance on each fund's cash reserves,the Council may wish to inquire about increasing the use of reserve funds or reducing capital improvement projects in the proposed budget to further delay a rate increase.The Council may also wish to inquire whether there would be an estimate for how a delay would affect future rate increases. For a more detailed view of each fund's budget,please see the following pages. 0 • 3 WATER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 The operating budget for the Water Enterprise Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be $44,882,576,which is an increase of$1,410,397,or 3.2%. WATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Propb3sed Percent 2009-10 2010-11 Difference Change Revenue&other sources Charges for services $ 50,057,000 $ 52,559,850 2,502,850 5.0% Interest income 370,000 300,000 (70,000) -18.9% Inter-fund charges 2,389,450 2,591,000 201,550 8.4% Sale of used equipment 50,000 50,000 - 0.0% Impact fees 500,000 500,000 - 0.0% Grants and Other related 905,000 905,000 0.0% revenues Bond proceeds - - #DIV/0! Use of cash reserves 15,078,189 9,611,976 (5,466,213) -36.3% Total revenue&other $ 69,349,639 $ 66,617,826 (2,831,813) -4.1% sources Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 16,313,790 $ 16,301,187 (12,603) -0.1% Materials&supplies 2,702,495 2,760,545 58,050 2.1% Charges for services 24,455,894 25,820,844 1,364,950 5.6% Total operating $ 43,472,179 $ 44,882,576 1,410,397 3.2% expenses Capital improvement 20,620,160 16,740,250 (3,879,910) -18.8% Vehicles&equipment 2,507,300 2,145,000 (362,300) -14.4% Debt Services 2,750,000 2,750,000 - 0.0% Total Operating Expenses $ 69,349,639 $ 66,517,826 (2,831,813) -4.1% &Capital Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budgets for the Water Fund include: Revenue Items: • Water Rates-there are two components affecting water rates for 2010-11: • Rate Increase:The proposed budget includes a five percent rate increase,which would generate an additional$2,502,850 in rate revenue. • Rate Structure:The Council may recall that over the past few budget years,the Department has discussed the need to review the rate structure and consider changes.A community group was convened to work with the consultant and generated some recommendations, which were reviewed by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee(PUAC). From that process came the recommendation to add a fourth tier to the water summer rates to capture some of the highest water users,and ideally encourage more conservation.The fourth tier would affect customers who use over 70 ccf in the month. Generally, these are the customers with larger landscaped areas. That would primarily affect eastside and county 4 customers.Water wise landscaping and other conservation measures can help water customers avoid paying the fourth tier prices. In comparing the effect of the proposed rate increase to the current rate structure,versus a four- tier structure,only the highest users are impacted. (Refer to page 50 in the Administration's transmittal.) The Council may elect to not implement the fourth tier. Although most of the community group members and PUAC members were supportive,there were a few comments in opposition. • Use of Reserve Funds-$9,611,976 of reserve funds will be used toward capital projects this year. The cash balance after use of these reserve funds will be$13,387,594.The Department has a cash reserve(or fund balance)target of 10%of operating expenses.The$13,387,594 would be 30%of the 2010-11 operating expenses. The healthy reserve balance has been critical to the Department's ability to sustain the capital improvement program during these tough economic times.At the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09,the cash reserves totaled$37,877,759.Based on future year projections,by the end of 2012-13,it would be at$8,458,795(or 18%of operating expenses). • Other Revenue Items- • Interfund Charges:The Department is increasing their charge to the Sewer,Stormwater,and Refuse Funds for the billing service provided.This will increase the water fund's revenue by $201,550. • Interest Income:Decrease by$70,000 as the Fund's cash reserves decrease. Operating Expense Items: • Metropolitan Water District-Between the budget to purchase water from Metro and the annual assessment for the Metro capital projects, the City pays $18,190,892 to Metro each year. This is roughly 40%of the Water Fund's operating budget. • Purchase of Water from Metropolitan Water District:The largest increase to Water operating expenses is due to the purchase price for water from the Metropolitan Water District.For the proposed fiscal year,the average rate per acre foot will increase to$219,which is a$6 increase per acre foot over last year. Metro implemented a seasonal rate last year,and the$219 per acre foot averages the amount of water purchased at the winter rate,$113,and the summer rate, $330. In addition to the per unit cost increase,the Department is also planning to purchase 51,000 acre feet this year,up from 48,000 in the past few years. Both of these factors result in an increase to the budget of$945,000. To take advantage of the seasonal rate structure,the Department intends to purchase additional water in the winter to reduce usage of City wells. • 5 - The MWD has raised the rates for the past several years and anticipates rate increases in the • coming years as well. Historical Future Rate (per Planned Year acre foot) Rates 2004-05 $150 2005-06 $163 2006-07 $175 2007-08 $188 2008-09 $200 2009-10 $213 2010-11 $219 (3%) 2011-12 $226 (3%) 2012-13 $233 (3%) 2013-14 $240 (3%) 2014-15 $247 (3%) 2015-16 $254 (3%) • Annual assessments for the Metropolitan Water District Capital Improvements:In addition to the purchase of water, the department pays a$7 million assessment for Metropolitan Water District capital improvements.These payments continue in 2010-11,and will continue for the next 23 years. Sandy City is also making assessment payments to the Metropolitan Water District for their share of project costs. The Metropolitan Water District budget is set by the Metro Water District Board. The Council has the opportunity to review the budget and give feedback,but does not approve the budget. One significant change to the Council's role in the Metro budget was made in this year's Legislative Session. For tax increases after January 1,2015,the City Councils of Salt Lake and Sandy cities will be the taxing authority and a vote by the Councils will be necessary in order to approve a property tax increase. More information on the legislative changes will be addressed in a report prepared on the Metro budget later in May. • Personal Services-(Overall decrease of$12,603) Increase/ (Decrease) Description $229,461 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 234,504 Increase to insurance costs(11%) (399,022) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) (63,521) Decrease due to classification changes (14,025) Transfer of.5 FTE to the Stormwater Fund 6 • Materials and Supplies(increase of$58,050 or 2.2%)-The increase is due to the cost for recycled paper forms,and the postage rate. • Charges for Services(increase of$1,364,950 or 5.6%)-Charges for services is budgeted to increase by 5.6%largely due to the increase in cost of water from the Metropolitan Water District already discussed.The other larger changes include: Increase jDecreasel Description $223,000 Risk Management Premiums-their insurance agency raised premiums based on dam risk. 45,600 Utility Costs 34,000 Bus Pass(to include FrontRunner) 30,000 Utah Lake costs 87,350 Other items(admin fees,evasive weed grant, data processing,communication,various. Capital Budget The following is included in the budget for capital improvements and purchases for fiscal year 2010-11. • Capital Outlay-Vehicles&Equipment(decrease of$362,300 or 14%)-The$2,145,000 budgeted for capital purchases allows the department to replace the necessary vehicles and make treatment plant purchases as needed. For vehicles,some necessary heavy equipment replacements will be made, and other vehicles will be replaced with an emphasis on fuel efficiency. C • Continuation of the existing capital improvement program - This budget of$16.7 million is in addition to the assessments for the Metropolitan Water District capital improvements. Proposed Water Capital Improvement Program 2010-11 Replacement of water lines and hydrants $ 7,939,250 Land Purchases(watershed purchases) $ 1,000,000 Reservoirs $ 555,000 Service Line Replacement&new connection $ 2,200,000 Treatment Plants $ 704,000 Pumping Plant Upgrades $ 1,150,000 Maintenance Buildings $ 745,000 Water meter replacement $ 100,000 Meter change out program $ 800,000 Culverts,flumes&bridges $ 510,000 Landscaping $ 432,000 Wells $ 575,000 Water stock purchases $ 30,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $16,740,250 The Department has decreased the budget for Capital Improvement projects by$3.9 million. • 7 - Waterline replacementprogram-The Department plans to replace 34,000 feet of pipe(or 6.44 miles!). - Water valve replacement-increase funding by$1 million for replacements and increasing the number of valves - - this will reduce the time households go without water during shut downs and main breaks,because the area affected by water shut-offs will be more limited. - Water meter replacement program-As water meters age,they begin to inaccurately measure water use (under read). The Department has determined that it is cost effective to replace meters that are 15 years old. During the past five years,the Department has replaced 59,000 meters with about 22,000 of these being radio reading devices. The radio-read meters are primarily in hilly areas and where meters are more spaced out or remote. Overall, the technology for radio-read meters is changing-while the cost of reading the radio meters is cheaper,the cost for the meter itself is still more than regular meters.As technology continues to develop and prices go down,the radio-read meters will become more cost-effective.One example of this is that when the radio-read meters were first installed, the batteries would only last about five years,but technology has continued to evolve and batteries are lasting closer to 10 years. For more information about the Watershed Land fund,please see attachment A for a brief memo. A transmittal from the Administration is also included in your packets. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 41/ 1. The Council may wish to ask about future projects that might require bonding. 2. The Council may wish to ask what percentage of users will see the most drastic increase to their monthly bill due to the rate increases and rate restructuring. 8 SEWER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 •■'' The operating budget for the Sewer Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be$11,835,189 which is an increase of$309,349 or 2.7%over fiscal year 2009-10. The capital budget,including debt service,is proposed to be$29,670,000. SEWER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Proposed Percent 2009-10 2010-11 Difference Change Revenue&other sources Sewer sen.ice fees $ 16,500,000 $17,242,500 $742,500 4.5% Interest income 250,000 250,000 $0 0.0% Permits 85,000 70,000 ($15,000) -17.6% Impact fees 350,000 350,000 $0 0.0% Other 645,000 655,000 $10,000 1.6% Bond Proceeds - 13,000,000 $13,000,000 Use of cash reserves 20,075,040 9,937,689 ($10,137,351) -50.5% Total revenue&other $ 37,905,040 $ 41,505,189 $3,600,149 9.5% sources Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $ 6,764,583 6953632 $189,049 2.8% Materials&supplies 1,221,310 $1,205,310 ($16,000) -1.3% Charges for services 3,539,947 3,676,247 $136,300 3.9% Total Operating Expenses $ 11,525,840 $ 11,835,189 $309,349 2.7% Capital improvement 21,945,100 $ 24,490,500 $2,545,400 11.6% Vehicles&equipment 2,499,100 2,244,500 ($254,600) -10.2% Debt Services 1,935,000 2,935,000 $1,000,000 51.7% Total Operating Expenses $ 37,905,040 $ 41,505,189 $3,600,149 9.5% &Capital Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budgets for the Sewer Fund include: Revenue Items: • Rate Increase-A rate increase of 4.5%is proposed for 2010-11.This would generate approximately $742,500 in additional revenue.Rate revenue is based on the water usage during winter months, since that is generally the usage attributable to indoor water use,including showers,dishwashers, etc. (which constitutes waste water). Therefore, these revenues are generally tied to the rate of users'conservation. 4%rate increases are planned for each of the next four years. • Use of Reserve Funds-$9,937,689 in reserve funds will be used toward capital projects. • Bond Proceeds-In order to accelerate the rehabilitation of the Orange Street Trunk Line to the treatment plant, the Department proposes issuing$10 million in bonds. In addition, earlier this year,the Council processed a bond issuance for$6.3 million for a digester cover replacement project -this was the zero interest bond offered by the State using Stimulus Grant funds. The funding for this project will be spread over three years.For 2010-11,$3 million will be budgeted. 9 Operating Expense Items: • Personal Services-(Overall increase of$189,049) Increase/ (Decrease) Description $93,486 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 98,596 Increase to insurance costs(11%) 98,436 Increase for employees hired at a trainee pay level,and are moving up to higher pay levels (101,469) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) • Materials and Supplies (overall decrease of $16,0) - There is an anticipated decrease in instrumentation repair and supplies. • Charges for Services(overall increase of$136,300)-This increase is due to: Increase/ (Decrease) Description $52,500 Increase to the Administrative Fees paid to the General Fund 40,000 Data Processing charges 32,500 Professional&Technical Services 15,000 Bus Pass(to include FrontRunner) (3,700) Various other increases/decreases Capital Budget The proposed budget reflects a total capital budget of$29,670,000 for capital improvement projects, vehicle&equipment purchases,and debt service. • Capital Improvement Projects(increase of$2.5 million) Proposed Capital Improvement Program Sewer Fund 2010-11 Collection Lines $15,155,500 Treatment Plant $ 8,200,000 Maintenance&repair shops $ 975,000 Lift Stations $ 160,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $24,490,500 • There are two major projects for the Sewer Fund: • Upgrade to the Orange Street Trunk Line, which is a collector line directly to the Treatment Plant.A portion of the line collapsed last year,and caused a new urgency to 10 upgrade the line.This will be a$10 million project and the Department intends to issue bonds to pay for the project. • Toward the end of 2009,the Council processed a bond issuance for a zero-interest bond with the State for a$6.3 million digester cover replacement project.A$3 million portion of that project will begin in 2010-11. This project is now expanded to include the replacement of the digester walls due to determination which will increase the total cost of the project to$8 million. • Over the last two years,the Department has conducted a"Sewer Master Plan Study".The results of the study provided a condition assessment of the sewer lines throughout the City, and a management plan for the repair or replacement to improve system capacity. • In addition to these major projects,the Fund will replace 30,100 linear feet of pipe. • Vehicle& Equipment Purchases ($254,600 decrease)-The budget is$2,244,500 for vehicles and equipment,including trucks,dump trucks,and other maintenance&plant equipment. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask whether the phase of the Sewer Master Plan Study has been completed addressing growth and planning citywide,specifically for the Northwest Quadrant. 2. A few Council Members may have had a chance to tour the upgrade to the 1800 North sewer line.The technique used to repair the line is a new technology.The Council may wish to ask for more information about the project. • 11 STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET,2010-11 The operating budget for the Stormwater Fund for fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be$3,868,117, which is an increase of$42,948 or 1.1% over fiscal year 2009-10. The capital budget, including debt service,is proposed to be$6,361,000. STORMWATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Proposed Difference Percent 2009-10 _ 2010-11 Change Revenue&other sources Stormwater service fee $5,245,000 $7,600,000 $2,355,000 44.90% County Flood Control — Interest 150,000 100,000 ($50,000) -33.33% Impact fees 200,000 _ 200,000 $0 0.00% Systems constructed by 516,000 516,000 $0 0.00% developers Other revenue 10,000 1,000 ($9,000) -90.00% Use of reserves 8,896,035 1,812,117 ($7,083,918) -79.63% Total revenue&other sources $15,017,035 $10,229,117 ($4,787,918) -31.88% Expenses Salaries,wages&benefits $1,777,096 $1,823,044 $45,948 2.59% Materials&supplies 112,700 112,700 $0 0.00% Charges for services 1,935,373 1,932,373 ($3,000) -0.16% Total operating expenses $ 3,825,169 $ 3,868,117 $42,948 1.12% Capital improvement 10,489,866 5,175,500 ($5,314,366) -50.66% Vehicles&equipment 102,000 585,500 $483,500 474.02% Debt Service 600,000 600,000 $0 0.00% Total Expenses&Capital $15,017,035 $10,229,117 ($4,787,918) -31.88% Outlay The key points reflected in the proposed budget for the Storm Water Fund include: Revenue Items: • Rate Increase - Last year, even before the decision to adopt a mid-year rate increase for the Stormwater fund, the Department had already planned for future year increases. This year, the budget includes a proposed 6%increase.The intention of the Department is that the larger increase this year would eliminate the need for an increase for the next few years. The Administration had raised the likelihood of this rate increase,to pay for the Stormwater pieces of the North Temple project-namely,the design of completing the Folsom Avenue conduit from 250 West to the Jordan River.This will serve to divert City Creek flows and alleviate the likelihood of flooding along North Temple. The 6% increase generates$460,000 in additional revenue. The remaining$1,895,000 in revenue increase is due to recognizing a full year of revenue from the$1.00 increase effective January 1, 2010. 12 • Use of reserves-Using the$1,812,117 from reserves would leave the balance at$3,998,221. Current forecasts do not show use of reserves during 2011-12 or 2012-13.The Council may wish to ask if there are more capital projects that could be completed using the cash on hand.This$3.99 million in cash reserves also takes into account that the projected actual use of reserves for this year will be closer to$4.5 million rather than the$8.9 million in the amended budget. Operating Expense Items: • Personal Services-(Overall increase of$45,948) Increase (Decrease) Description $25,208 Increase to retirement payments(17%) 25,672 Increase to insurance costs(11%) 14,025 Increase for employee transferred from the Water Fund 5,962 Classification changes (24,919) Decrease for the 1.5%salary reduction in the current fiscal year(their budget was not amended at the time of adoption last year) • Charges for Services(decrease of$3,000)-The change to this category is small.However,one item of note,is$100,000 in continuing budget for the Riparian Corridor Study.$600,000 was originally budgeted for the project,and this final amount should bring the study phase to completion. The current study area is for City Creek and Parley's.Red Butte and Emigration Creeks are complete and projects are being identified based on the study results. There is $450,000 included in the Stormwater capital budget for Riparian Corridor related projects. Capital Budget The proposed budget reflects a total capital budget of$6,361,000 for capital improvement projects, vehicle&equipment purchases,and debt service. • Capital Improvement Projects(increase of$382,0001 The proposed budget reflects a capital improvement budget of$4,290,000 for fiscal year 2009-10, which is a 9.7%increase from last year. Proposed Capital Improvement Program Storm Water Fund 2010-11 Collection Lines(28,100 feet of pipe) $4,435,500 Lift Stations $ 290,000 Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 450,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $5,175,500 • 13 NiammmiiMEIM QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about the Riparian Corridor Improvements. The residents involved with the study have raised several questions,and as expected,several projects have been identified. The Council may inquire how the administration of those projects will be handled,including whether staffing may be needed,funding will be budgeted each year in the future,and if so,for how long. 2. During the regional athletic complex discussion, some of the Council Members expressed interest in considering establishing a fund for riparian preservation and restoration,similar to the watershed fund.The Council may wish to discuss whether there is interest in considering this mechanism now or at some future date. 3. The Council continues to receive complaints from citizens about significant drainage issues in Districts 1,2 and 6.The Council may wish to ask how the Department is handling major street drainage issues and whether there is a long-term capital plan to address such issues. 14 Additional Information WATER BACKGROUND Salt Lake City's water delivery system to City and County residents depends on a complex network of dams, aqueducts, water treatment plants, distribution reservoirs, and water mains. Upkeep and maintenance of older systems and construction of new systems is very costly. The Department of Public Utilities has over 91,000 water service connections. The Department maintains treatment plants, wells,reservoirs,1,222 miles of water mains,and 178 miles of conduit and supply lines. Water Sources-For the 2008-09 water year(July to June;last full year available),below is a chart of sources for City water. The total used was 97,175 acre feet. (Note: the water from Little Cottonwood,Deer Creek,and CUP was delivered by Metro Water.) Water Sources 2008-09 Water Year 1 City Creek,794 Groundwater, 8% O IrVLittle 11 Cottonwood, 12% SEWER FUND BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities has over 49,340 sewer connections. The Sewer Fund maintains 641 miles of sanitary sewer pipe and connection lines. The reclamation plant treats an average of 35,000,000 gallons of sanitary sewer per day. Maintaining the sewer lines and operating the lift stations and reclamation plant is accomplished with 99.85 employees. Effective January 1, 2001, sewer fees were based on discharge strength as well as volume. Approximately 2,500 of the 49,340 accounts are charged an additional fee because they discharge sewage with strengths greater than domestic or residential sewer flows. This change sets rates so that residential customers or commercial customers with domestic discharges do not subsidize customers with greater than domestic strength discharges. . This rate structure encourages businesses to reduce discharge strengths. 15 STORM WATER BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities maintains over 470 miles of stormwater pipe and collection lines using 27.45 employees. It was 1991 when the General Fund transferred the entire storm drain system under Public Utilities management. July 1991 began the implementation of a new stormwater fee based on surface area. This last January was the first time rates have increased since 1991.No public tax dollars have been used to help the system. Stormwater employees also monitor the snow pack water content and manage the stormwater permit process. 16 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 27,2010 SUBJECT: BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY,Fiscal Year 2010-11 STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Mike Wilson,Josh DeBry,Jeff Niemeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy(the"District")is proposing an operating budget of$12,413,398 for fiscal year 2010-11. The proposed operating budget represents a one percent decrease from last year($132,270). In addition,the District is proposing a budget for capital improvements of $4,012,479. Although the Council is not required to take any official action on the District's annual budget,the Council has traditionally received a briefing.(An item below discusses amendments to the State Code from this year's legislative session that changes the Member Cities'role as the taxing authority for the District.) The tentative budget for 2010-11 is relatively flat from the current year.A few key items included in the District's proposed budget are listed below. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy Proposed Budget forFY 2010-11 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Percent Budget Budget Proposed , Difference Change Sources of Funds Water sales&other $13,333,562 $14,813,300 513,986,158 (827,142) -5.6% operating revenue Tax revenue 9,186,332 9,364,352 9,364,352 - 0.0% Interest revenue 881,090 1,092,549 217,367 (875,182) -80.1% Lab fees,power and 22,300 19,400 547,202 527,802 2720.6% miscellaneous Vehicle sales - 18,000 • (18,000) -100.0% Assessments 11,263,580 11,287,245 12,067,105 779,860 6.9% Total sources of funds $34,755,522 $36,646,589 536,182,184 (464,405) -1.3%__ Uses of Funds Operations Salaries,wages&benefits $5,387,074 $5,449,338 $5,407.907 (41,431) -0.8% Professional&contractual 2,108,205 2,178,502 2,452.860 274,358 12.6% services Utilities 1,554,579 1,561,282 1,348,569 (212,713) -13.6% Repairs&maintenance 528,655 500,314 265,127 (235,187) -47.0% Chemicals&supplies 1,631,619 1.833,426 1,861,080 27,654 1.5% Property&liability insurance 499,090 502,246 514,754 12,508 2.5% Other expenses 552,205 520,560 563,101 42,541 8.2% Operating Expenses $ 12,261,427 $ 12,545,668 $ 12,413,398 (132,270) -1.1% Water Assessments 4,475,200 4,668,317 6.925,411 2,257,094 48.3% Debt service(principal only) 3,765,000 3,505,299 4.500,000 994,701 28.4% Interest expense 11,848,763 13,386,504 12,195,728 (1,190,776) -8.9% Capital improvements & 7,264,124 6,025,111 4.012,479 (2,012,632) -33.4% Equipment Total uses of funds 539,614,514 540,130,899 $40,047,016 (83,883) -0.2% KEY ELEMENTS • No property tax increase-the Council may recall that for the past several years,the District has gone through the Truth in Taxation process to keep their certified tax rate steady at 0.00035.This allowed the District to collect more revenues as the assessed value of homes within their taxing boundaries rose.Holding the certified tax rate steady helped them address the same inflationary challenges that the City faces.However,in the recent year and a half or so,the assessed value of properties has declined at a significant enough rate that this current year,their certified tax rate was automatically adjusted to approximately 0.0004.(Per state statute,the District is guaranteed at least the same amount of revenue as the previous year. Therefore if values decline,the rate is automatically adjusted upward to generate the same amount of revenue.) The District cannot predict what the status of assessed values will be this year,so in order to guarantee at least the same amount of revenue as last year,it has elected not to voluntarily adjust the tax rate,but rather allow the county to impose whatever rate will generate the same amount of revenue as FY 2010.The maximum rate that the District can impose is 0.0005. • Operating Costs- o No salary increases-the District has not proposed any salary increases for this fiscal year. However, to keep salaries comparable within the market, the District has re-evaluated their salary ranges and are suggesting shifting them up slightly-by approximately 1.8%. There is only a very slight cost to this change in 2010-11, because there is only one employee who is at the bottom of the range. The new range will cause slight budget impacts in future years as new employees are hired at higher rates,and employees at the top-end of the ranges may now be eligible for merit increases. The Council may wish to discuss the reasons for implementing the range adjustments this year. o Benefits costs-similar to what the City is experiencing,the District is budgeting for an increase in medical and dental premiums, and retirement costs. As a reminder, the District uses a Health Savings Account program for employee contributions. o The District is eliminating a vacant lab technician position. • Legislative Changes-During the 2010 Legislative Session,a bill was adopted that changed certain provisions for Local Districts,including metropolitan water districts.The most significant change was to shift the authority for tax increase approval to the member cities'governing bodies.This means that beginning in 2014,if the District proposes a property tax increase,both Sandy City and Salt Lake City Councils must vote to approve the increase. The intention is that elected officials be responsible for imposing tax increases. An option was included in the bill for the District board members to transition into elected positions. Currently,nearly 26%of the District's annual revenues are generated from property taxes. (39% comes from water sales,33%from member city assessments) To plan for the taxing changes and/or changes to revenues from water sales,the District will be engaging in discussions with member city representatives to discuss a 5- or 10-year plan for revenue strategies. • Capital Projects o Although the contribution is calculated as part of the District's 0&M costs,$2.4 million will fund costs related to the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure project.This has been in coordination stages for several years,and funding from other involved parties has come together.The total enclosure project is approximately$150 million,of which the District's portion is about$25 million. 2 • o In future years,the District has a few capital projects,and anticipates issuing bonds in 2013-14. • Salt Lake City's Contributions-a snapshot: Asa member city,Salt Lake City directly contributes approximately$23 million annually toward the Metropolitan Water District Budget.This budgetary relationship is similar for Sandy City(as the other member city of the District);however,their assessments and purchases are proportionately less,due to their smaller population size and cost allocations based on cost of service.These budget items include: a. $7,021,892 An annual assessment to pay for master planned capital projects through an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement-included in the Public Utilities Department Budget each year(through 2035).(Sandy City pays$4,210,322.) b. $9,945,350 Anticipated annual purchase of water from the District for sale and use through the Public Utilities water service-included in the Public Utilities Department Budget for 48,000 acre feet of water.This represents a 3%rate increase.(Sandy City purchases approximately 18,500 a.f.;$3.7 million.) c. $6,417,861 Property taxes assessed to Salt Lake City residents.(Sandy City tax revenue is estimated at$2,216,032.)(Not including fees in lieu of taxes,or prior year tax revenues.) BACKGROUND In 1935,the voters of Salt Lake City created the Metropolitan Water District in order to enter into long- term agreements to build the Provo River Project including Deer Creek Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation built the project,and it was necessary to enter into repayment contracts to reimburse the federal government for the construction costs plus interest. The Metropolitan Water District is a 61.7% owner of the Provo River Project. The water rights for the Provo River Project consist of water from the Provo River and water diverted from the Duchesne and Weber Rivers conveyed through a tunnel and canal system from the two basins to the Provo River for use by the Metropolitan Water District and others. In order to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of the Provo River Project and Deer Creek Reservoir,the residents of Salt Lake City have paid property taxes since 1935. The District is a participant in the Central Utah Project having petitions for combined water supplies of 25,600 acre feet from Jordanelle and Strawberry reservoirs. The Metropolitan Water District was a local sponsor for the construction of Little Dell Reservoir. (A map of the District system and facilities is attached.) In 1990,Sandy City became the second member of the District. Sandy City sought membership in the District to treat its approximately 34 percent water right in Little Cottonwood Creek. Sandy City's annexation in the District increased efficiencies by consolidating water supplies and delivery systems to most of eastern Salt Lake County. As part of the agreement, the District receives water purchase revenue and ad valorem tax revenue from Sandy City. Furthermore,as a part of the annexation Salt Lake City acquired additional water rights in Little Dell Reservoir and$4 million in water transmission mains installed on the City's west side. Also, the 1990 agreement admitting Sandy City established conjunctive water management practices among Salt Lake City, Sandy City, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District and the Metropolitan Water District. In 1998,the Metropolitan Water District updated its capital improvement master plan and identified more than$250 million in improvements and expansion of water system capacity. In 2001,the District entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Sandy and Salt Lake City for implementation of the master plan.The major project constructed under the master plan was a new water treatment plant near the Li Point of the Mountain in the Draper area. The master plan improves redundancy in the event of a water treatment plant or aqueduct failure. Improvements include pipeline connections between the Little 3 Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant, and the Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant. This will allow flexibilities in shifting water between major north- south pipelines. The extensive water treatment and delivery functions allow the District to provide water to both member cities through purchase agreements,and sales to other entities,as water is available. The District's Board is made up of two members appointed by the Sandy City Council and five members appointed by the Salt Lake City Council. The Council has traditionally received a briefing on the proposed budget for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy,but is not required to take any official action. Verbal feedback can be provided to representatives of the District at the briefing. The Council has on occasion also provided written comments to the Salt Lake City-appointed board members.Utah Code Annotated,§17A-1-502,provides that constituent entities of a local district can request a meeting with representatives of a district to discuss the budget. The law does not prevent the board of a local district from approving and implementing a budget over protests or objections of constituent entities. 4 ti. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: April 21,2009 Subject:Proposed Budget—Salt Lake City Department of Airports 2010-2011 Affected Council Districts:All Staff Report By:Russell Weeks Administrative Dept.and Contact Person:Department of Airports,Finance Director Jay C.Bingham,Manager for Financial Analysis Joseph Moratalla This memorandum pertains to the Department of Airports budget request for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.The request has been reviewed by representatives of the airlines that use the department's facilities,the Airport Board Finance Subcommittee,and the Airport Board.The Board at its March 17 meeting forwarded the budget with a positive recommendation. It should be noted that the Department of Airports transmittal includes two items:the department's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-2011,and a document titled Budget Briefing Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget. KEY ELEMENTS: • The proposed budget is about a 3 percent decrease from the current fiscal year's amended budget. • According to the department,a major budgetary goal"was to keep airline rate and charges flat"with the current fiscal year in part"to address the economic recovery environment."'The goal is the same the department had last year when the budget reflected a 7 percent decrease in revenues and expenditures. • The proposed budget again addresses maintaining existing terminals and runways at Salt Lake City International Airport while making improvements to airplane taxiways and aprons and planning for the eventual construction of new terminals and parking facilities. • The proposed budget reflects terms of use agreements with commercial airlines that use Salt Lake City Intemational Airport.(It should be noted that the department also operates the South Valley Regional Airport in West Jordan and the Tooele Valley Airport.) • It also should be noted that the department paid off long-term debt incurred chiefly at the International Airport in Fiscal Year 2007-2008.Since then,it has incurred no new long- term debt.In addition,the department a few years ago purchased passenger boarding bridges and turned them into a revenue source. 1 OPTIONS: • Adopt the budget as recommended by the Airport Board as part of consideration of the City budget. • Amend the proposed budget as part of the consideration of the City budget. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATION: • The proposed budget includes an"assumed giving back the 1.5 percent salary reductions (in the current fiscal year),plus a.5 percent increases in salaries for all employees." However,department administrators note that the department in the past usually has followed salary and benefit adjustments contained in the final budget adopted by the City Council. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund,and,as that,is not funded by the general fund. REVIEW OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 Revenue Sources Amended Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011 Difference Change Operating Revenues $ 112,266,100 $ 121,322,500 $ 9,056,400 8% Passenger Facility Charges 19,586,600 46,244,900 26,658,300 136% Grants/Reimbursements 96,953,200 47,705,000 (49,248,200) -51% Interest Income 5,500,000 4,500,000 (1,000,000) -18% Airport Improvement Fund 40,092,600 46,554,200 6,461,600 16% TOTAL $ 274,398,500 $ 266,326,600 $ (8,071,900) -3% It should be noted that the figures above and on Page 3 of this report are taken from the budget request summary on Page iv of the Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Despite a projected flat budget,operating revenues are expected to increase by about 8 percent in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.Perhaps the most notable item in the figures is the fluctuation of projected income from passenger facility charges and grants and reimbursements.The fluctuations reflect an increase in capital programs planned to be funded with passenger facility charges and fewer capital projects funded with grants and reimbursements from airport tenants, according to the department.The projected increase in the amount for the Airport Improvement Fund reflects the use of the department's surplus available for short-or long-term capital improvements,and the establishment of reserves. 2 One of the two largest revenue sources in the operating revenues category is revenue from airlines.Net revenue from airline companies is projected to decline by$638,400 to $40,109,800.2 However,negotiated agreements between the airlines and Salt Lake City include a "passenger incentive rebate"totaling$10,272,000 that will be paid to airlines.The agreements will go into effect July 1,2010,and will last for three years.The proposed budset includes the rebate as a line item that is added to the net revenue for a total of$50,381,800. The rebate is a$1 per passenger payment to the airlines.The airlines will receive the payments monthly.The rebate is the main reason for the projected increase in operating revenue,according to the department.° The rebate is designed in large part to keep costs per enplaned passengers low for airlines that use the International Airport.The cost per enplaned passenger is projected to decline from $3.76 per passenger to$3.56 per passenger in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Airport Director Maureen Riley told the Airport Board at its March meeting that costs per enplaned passenger at the Denver International Airport and the SeaTac Airport in Washington are roughly about$11 and$9 respectively. Concessions make up the second-largest source of operating revenue.Concession revenue is projected to decline by$810,900 to$52,998,700. Revenue from parking is expected to decline by about$1.4 million to$25,046,400—a 5 percent decrease.The proposed budget includes the elimination of the free half-hour in the covered parking garage to prevent further erosion in that category.The projected loss is partially offset by projected increases in revenue from car rental companies,up$541,000,and food and beverage concessions,up$322,400. Other projected concession revenues indicate a mixed bag of declines and increases.As the budget message indicates,"With the economy in recession,passengers'spending patterns in airports have also changed.The forecast reflects these changes in Airport concession revenues for food, beverage and retail items.Car rental activities and parking reflect significant declines as business and leisure travelers have also changed their spending habits.."' end Exp itures Amended Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011 Difference Change Operating Expenses $ 87,055,800 $ 86,730,300 $ (325,500) 0% Passenger Incentive Rebate 0 10,272,000 10,272,000 Capital Equipment 7,302,700 4,440,200 (2,862,500) -39% Capital Improvements 180,040,000 145,429,000 (34,611,000) -19% Renewal/Replacement Fund 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 Increase O&M Reserves 0 14,455,100 14,455,100 TOTAL $ 274,398,500 $ 266,326,600 $ (8,071,900) -3% The table indicates three new expenses that were not in the requested budget for the current fiscal year.All three are part of the agreements between the City and airlines using the International Airport.Besides the passenger incentive rebate,the agreements call for a"renewal and replacement fund"and a"two-month operating and maintenance reserve."8 3 The requested budget includes$44,731,300 in salaries and benefits for the Department of Airports 597.8 full-time equivalent employees.The figure is$573,500 less than the amended budget.Salaries and benefits make up about 52 percent of operating expenses in the requested budget.As indicated earlier in this report,the requested budget assumes a 2 percent salary adjustment for employees.The budget also assumes an 11 percent increase in medical insurance rates,and a small increase in retirement rates.9 The department is not funding 11.5 full-time equivalent positions in the requested budget.The positions currently are vacant and represent a savings of about$1 million.10 The department has scheduled a variety on capital improvement projects.They include the following projects that may be of interest to the City Council. • Analysis and design of new terminals,concourses,parking structure.The project provides funding for consultants necessary to provide detailed analysis and design to refine the development of a new terminal complex proposed in the 1997 Airport Master Plan.Funding is included for finishing an environmental assessment to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements.The project is ongoing and has a total budget of$31.7 million."As with many projects in department's requested budget,the department has to show the full source of funding for a project because the department's budget is an enterprise fund. • Renovating and maintaining existing terminals.The budget includes installing an additional elevator for Lower B Concourse;remodeling a restroom in Concourse E; replacing 49-year-old ventilation and fan systems in Terminal No.1;renovating concourses and terminals starting with Concourse A and pedestrian bridges;and installing connections to doors in terminals and concourses that face the airfield so the doors will open immediately if a fire alarm sounds.Total cost for the projects is about $9.8 million.I22 • Installing closed circuit television cameras.The cameras will be installed at various locations throughout the airport complex as a security measure.The$4 million project will be paid for with federal economic stimulus funds.13 • Purchasing wetlands credits.The project would purchase 42.88 playa and saline wet • meadow credits to round out about 400 acres of wetlands the department created as part of a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers requirement for building a runway in the early 1990s. In reviewing the department's permit,the Corps of Engineers the wetlands were "deficient in certain types and quantities of wetlands that have been created."The credit purchase is designed to satisfy the permit requirements." Cc:Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Maureen Riley,Jay C.Bingham,Joseph Moratalla, Dan Mule,Gordon Hoskins Jennifer Bruno,Gina Chamness Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-201/,Page i. 'Budget Briefing Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget,Page 5. 'Ibid.Page 5. 'Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-2011,Page ill. 'Ibid.Page 16. Ibid.Page 6. 'Ibid.Page i. Ibid.Page iii. °Budget Briefing Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget,Page 8. Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-2011,Page iii. Ibid.Page 53. it Budget Briefing Fiscal Year 2010-20/1 Budget,Page 13. Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010-201/,Page 48. "Ibid.Page 30. 4 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 11,2010 BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst cc: Chief Chris Burbank,Dobrowolski Walter,Jerry Burton,David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Sylvia Richards,Lehua Weaver Recently the Police Department reorganized several administrative level positions within the Police Department. Advantages of the reorganization include involving more officers in the day-to-day decision making operations of the department;removing one level of the traditional command structure;and providing more advancement opportunities for officers. Four(4)Captains,three(3)Assistants to the Chief,and one(1) Lieutenant were reclassified to Deputy Chief,an appointed position. The former three(3)bureaus- Administrative,Investigative,and Operations-have been replaced with eight new bureaus. These bureaus include the following: Facilities Development,Administration,Communications and Records,Fusion, Investigations,Management Services,Patrol,and Special Operations. Where possible,these changes will be compared to prior year's budgets and staffing levels. The Police Department is funded by the General Fund,but also benefits from various federal and state grants. In Fiscal Year 2010,federal and state grants awarded and budgeted amounted to$5,497,919. The Mayor's Recommended Budget proposes$55,169,063 of ongoing funding for the Police Department. This is a 1%increase over the prior year. For FY 2011,the Police Department's expenditure budget represents 29.54%of the General Fund budget. In FY 2010 the Police Department budget was 27.5%of the total General Fund budget.The Administration indicates this increase of 2.04%is representative of the Administration's overall commitment to Public Safety. Personal services costs,salaries,wages,and benefits, represent 90.2%of the Police Department's operating budget. According to statistics provided by the SLCPD,the police department had 228,947 calls for service in 2009. This is a decrease of 9.6%or 21,931 fewer calls for service than calendar year 2008. The SLCPD Part 1 Crime report provides details about the types of crimes committed in Salt Lake City. Part 1 crimes require FBI tracking and include the following: 1)Violent crimes-homicide/murder,forcible rape,robbery,and aggravated assaults and 2)Property crimes-burglary,larceny/theft,motor vehicle theft,and arson. Violent crimes saw a 9.7%decrease or 126 cases and property crimes saw an 11.4%decrease or 1,671 cases fewer from calendar year 2008 to 2009. In addition to Part 1 crimes,the police department provides services related to:drugs and alcohol,internet safety,traffic enforcement,public order,and vice issues. KEY ISSUES • In addition to the reorganization outlined above,the Division of Emergency Management Services was transferred from the Administrative Services Department when the department was dismantled. Details of the staffing changes are included in this staff report. • As indicated in the Mayor's Recommended Budget,the net staffing changes resulted in a reduction of 1.5 FTEs. • While police officers have not been cut from the budget,it is likely the Department will have to absorb costs associated with a number of retirements since the Administration has reduced the retirement fund from$1 million to$500,000. • The Department applied for and received a Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS)federal grant. This grant provides funding for eleven(11)officers. • Economic conditions,including at the local level,have resulted in reduced revenues and therefore,the need to cut costs throughout the City. The changes proposed by the Administration,including the 1 reinstatement of the 1.5%salary reduction and merit step has increased the Department's personal services budget by$1,118,209 or 2.3%. • The Salt Lake City Police Department has several initiatives to help prevent,detect,investigate,and resolve criminal activity. Details of some programs can be found later in this report. • $50,000 in on-going money is not included in the budget for the implementation of sworn officer fitness standards(Prior Year Legislative Intent Statement). Proposed Budget 2010-11-The following is a summary of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2010-11. Although the Police Department was recently reorganized from three(3)to eight(8) bureaus,this report compares this year's budget with the FY 2010 budget by major function. For example,the newly created Investigations and Special Operations Bureaus are part of the Investigative function for the department. Both the Liberty and Pioneer Patrol are now combined into the Patrol Bureau or Operations function. Administrative functions include the following bureaus: Administrative,Management Services,Communications and Records,and Fusion. The informational column is actually the proposed FY 2011 budget for each of the eight new bureaus. The highlighted subtotals allow the reader to make a dollar and percentage comparison between the General Fund expenditure budgets of FY 2011 and FY 2010. Salt Lake City Police Department tnformProadppoons Ied Budgets Purposes Only FY 2001-10 FY 2010-11 Division Adopted Proposed Percent Additional Division Functions Budgets Budget Budget Difference Change Information Office of the Police Chief $ 458,724 $ 1,848,478 $ 458,724 $(1,389,754) -75.18% New position created to oversee the Public Safety Fecilitiee Development Bureau Building $ 291,949 $ - $ 291,949 $ 291,949 Existing Staff Atlmin�ative $17,754,849 $19,761,044 $2,006,195 11.30% Public Relations.Admin Services,General Seices,and Emergency Administration Bureau Management Services $ 4,583,602 Internal Affairs, Recruiting.and InSertice Management Services Bureau Training. $ 2,8413,255 - Vacancy positions Dispatch,E-911, were eliminated in Communication and Records Technical SeMces.and Records(1)and Bureau Records. $ 6,281,552 - Dispatch(1) Nam end Vice,Homeland Secunty.Cnme Analysis, Community Intelligence. Bikes,Park 8 COP,and Fusion Bureau Volunteer Coordination. $ 5,047,635 - Investigative $14,990,423 $14,900,659 $ (89,764) -0.60% Domestic Violence. Financial Crimes. Homicide, Robbery/Assault,Sex Crimes/Special Victims. Victim Aduncates,Task Vacancy position was Force Participation,and eliminated for Office Investigations Bureau School Resources. $ 7,147,762 Tech(1)In Crime Lab. Motors,Accident Vacancy position was Investigation.K-8, eliminated for Office Special Operations Bureau Gang/SWAT. $ 7,752,897 Tech(1)SWAT/Gangs Patrol/Ope retsina $20,033,011 $19,756,687 $ (276,324) -1.38% 24hour Patrol or East Side,Property Crimes Liberty Patrol Insestigative Fdlowup. $ 8,718,151 - 24hour Patrol for West Side,Downtown Bike Patrol,and Property Crimes Investigative Pioneer Patrol Follow-up. $ 11,038,536 Total Pollee Department (General Fund) $ 55,169,063 $54,626.761 S 55.169.083 $ 542,302 0.99% 2 Proposed Staffing 2010-11 - The following is the current allocation of authorized full-time equivalent positions and the proposed allocation including the additional positions. Salt Lake City Police Department Full-Time Equivalent Positions Division Functions FY 2009.10 Adopted FY 2010-11 Proposed Sworn Civilian Sworn Civilian Office of the Police Chief 11 4 1 2 Deputy Chief and staff assigned to oversee the Public Safety Facilities Development Bureau Building 0 0 2 0 Adminstrative 80 116 89 118.5 Public Relations,Admin Services, General Services,and Emergency Administration Bureau Management Services 0 0 10 9.5 Internal Affairs,Recruiting,and In- Management Services Bureau Seance Training. 0 0 25 2 Communication and Records Dispatch,E-911,Technical _ Bureau Services,and Records. 0 0 1 100 Narcotics and Vice enforcement, Homeland Security,Salt Lake Information Center(SLIC), Community Intelligence,Bikes. Park 8 COP,and Volunteer Fusion Bureau Coordination. 0 0 53 7 Investigative 121 35 120 33 Domestic Violence,Financial Crimes,Homicide, Robbery/Assault,Sex Crimes/Special Victims,Victim Adwcates,Task Force Participation,Crime Lab, Investigations Bureau Evidence,and School Resource. 0 0 47 32 Motors,Accident Investigation,K- Special Operations Bureau 9,Gang/SWAT. 0 0 73 1 Patrol/Operations 215 5 215 5 24-hour Patrol for East Side, Property Crimes Investigative Followup. 24-hour Patrol for West Side,Downtown Bike Patrol,and Property Crimes Investigative Patrol Bureau Follow-up. 0 0 215 5 Total Police Department Staffing 427 160 427 158.5 3 BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE The following are general explanations of budget changes in fiscal year 2010-11. Some of the proposed expenditure changes,increases and decreases,to the budget are highlighted below. The"►"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. EXPENDITURES Staffing Changes-The chart presented below is a summary of the staffing changes affecting the SLCPD. Additional information regarding Staffing and other Personnel Costs follows the Staffing Summary Table. Personal Services Topic FTE Amount Additional Information Emergency Management 2.5 $232,729 In order to gain both operational efficiencies and cost savings,the Administrative Services Services-Transfer from Department was dismantled. Divisions within the department were realigned to reflect the Administrative Services needs of the current Administration. Emergency Management Services was one of the divisions that was transferred. In order to keep informed with Emergency Management Services initiatives and preparations,the Council may wish to schedule regular briefings. Eliminate FY 2010 Citywide $1,035,812 In FY 2010,the Administration proposed a 1.5%salary suspension program to address the FY Salary Suspension 2010 budget shortfall. Employees were given one personal holiday per quarter in exchange for the salary suspension.According to the Administration,this suspension was eliminated based on comments received. In addition,merit was restored for eligible employees.*Does the Council wish to consider comments regarding the desire to keep the salary suspension in order to save employee positions? Pension Changes $438,982 Currently the City is paying 35.71%of base salary for pensions of swom police officers.The percentage is increasing to 36.31%. Insurance Rate Changes $154,200 Co-payments and maximum out-of-pocket adjustments were made to the City's health insurance plan for employees.After these adjustments,the insurance rate increase was 9%. The Administration is proposing that employees pay 15%of the premium,5%more than in FY 2010. The City's share of the insurance rate increase is$661,325,which will be spread across City departments.Vacant positions insurance costs are budgeted at family rates. Long Term Disability Cost $(156,000) The Administration was able to negotiate a cost reduction for the Police Department's Long Tenn Disability account.There was no reduction of benefits. Adjustment to 90%-Evidence $10,100 The Citizens Compensation Advisory Board(CCAB)identified several positions with the City Tech II whose salaries were markedly below market rates.They recommended that these positions be adjusted. FY 2010 to FY 2011-Base $(38,525) This is the net change of personnel costs. In this case there was a net decrease which reflects •iustment the new hires and se.-rations within the Police De.-rtmenl Reduction-SWAT/Gangs (1) ($42,996) Vacant position-eliminated by the department. Office Tech(Vacant) The Council may wish to ask the department how duties and responsibilities of this reduction will be handled. Reduction-Office Tech- (1) ($42,000) Vacant position-eliminated by the department. Crime Lab(Vacant) The Council may wish to ask the department how duties and responsibilities of this reduction will be handled. Reduction-Information (1) ($43,000) Vacant position-eliminated by the department. Specialist Position(Vacant) The Council may wish to ask the department how duties and responsibilities of this reduction will be handled. Reduction-Police Dispatch (1) ($56,032) Vacant position-eliminated by the department. Position(Vacant) The Council may wish to ask the department how duties and responsibilities of this reduction will be handled,and whether there is a potential that this will create additional overtime. Reduction-All hourly positions (8) $(229,000) Eliminate all hourly positions-The Police Department hires retired and civilian employees to (19 PT Employees or 8 FTEs) handle various tasks and responsibilities of the department. Some of the tasks include answering phones,gathering victim and/or incident information,and provide victim advocacy services.This arrangement allowed swom officers to remain focused on direct police investigative follow-up and field response. *The Council may wish to ask the department how duties and responsibilities of these reductions will be handled. They may also wish to get a full understanding of the impact of this change to the public.Examples include,will response times be longer?Will certain incidents be considered lower priority?What is the impact of this to the public?Will enforcement of recent ordinances,for example,loud party ordinance,be reduced,eliminated,or considered a lower priority? ►Does the Council wish to discuss these enforcement issues in more detail? One Time Savings - Delay $(212,968) Currently,there are 17 vacant positions within the Police Department Given the current hiring of Recruit Class until budget situation,the Administration is proposing that the next recruit class not be hired until September 2010 September of 2010.The department is currently reviewing and managing a list of interested a licants and lans to be in the formal hirin rocess in Jul of 2010 for a Se tember hire. -Total One Time:Savings - $(212,9. Net' Gicrease'le Personal `$1,9 r' Services' 4 Staffing Related Items 1. Increase - $1,051,302 - Staffing Changes and Personal Services Costs (See above chart for detailed information.) - The Administration and Police Department have proposed changes that they feel will have minimal effect on the delivery of direct police services. There are two staffing changes in particular that Council Staff believes may have a larger than expected impact to the Police Department: 1) Delaying the hire of recruit classes - The hiring and training period, which is approximately 36 weeks of classroom and field training,should be considered because of the length of time before an officer is fully trained and ready to be in the field. 2)Elimination of all hourly positions within the Department-Response times for non- emergency calls may be delayed, incidents may not get the attention expected of the public, and tasks completed by hourly employees will have to be absorbed by sworn officers. Police Department personnel indicated that light duty officers would handle telephonic investigations so that uniformed officers are not called in from the field. In addition, there may be issues that may not be prioritized as the Council and/or community members expect. The overall net increase to Personal Services is due to eliminating the FY 2010 the 1.5% salary suspension program and restore merits, adjusting for pension and insurance increases. In addition to the hourly positions, four vacant positions are being proposed for elimination. Lastly, the Long Term Disability benefit was recently re-negotiated, resulting in a savings of$156,000. Additional staffing change details and questions the Council may wish to consider are included in the above chart. 2. Staffing Levels-Although there are many staffing and reorganizational changes as per the above charts,the budget proposed by the Administration decreases the SLCPD's FTEs by 1.5 civilian positions. Four vacant positions were eliminated and 2.5 positions were transferred for the Emergency Management Services Division,which had been in the Administrative Services Department. The 19 hourly positions,which represent 8 FTEs, are not included in the staffing document. The Police Department currently has 427 sworn officer positions and 158.5 civilian employees in their General Fund budget. In addition,there are 12 non-seasonal and 4 seasonal grant funded positions within the Police Department. Twelve(12)of the non-seasonal positions are funded by the COPS Universal Hiring grant-School Resource Officer(1 FTE),Hiring Recovery Program(10) grants,and one(1)for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency. 3. Elimination of Positions-4 FTEs-The Administration proposes four reductions within the SLCPD. The FY 2011 proposed budget does not require the layoff of any current full- time employees. However,all part-time positions were eliminated. Details of the reductions are provided in the above Staffing Changes chart. 4. Overtime Costs-According to the Police Department, overtime is not intended to meet staffing in basic patrol on a regular basis. The annual General Fund overtime budget (including Court Time) for fiscal year 2010-11 is approximately$1,502,500, a decrease of $68,000,which is related to the transfer of City Narcotics to Metro Narcotics Task Force. This includes$400,000 in special event overtime. The actual overtime expense for the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2010 is$1,130,569. The projected annual overtime expenses for FY 2010 are expected to be within the base budgeted amount ($1,570,500) for overtime. When overtime occurs for the department, attrition and vacancy savings fund the overtime costs. Police Department Leadership have implemented a monthly reporting 5 meeting which includes reviewing and proactively managing the operating budget and overtime usage. 5. Hiring and Training-During the past year,the SLCPD has had Council approval,but not funding to"over hire"ten police officers. According to the department,this has been a successful approach to managing department personnel needs,which occur due to retirement and officers on military leave. However,the actual hiring of recruits is based on current or imminent vacancies. According to the Administration,there are 17 vacancies in the Police Department. The funding for the over hire is provided from attrition and vacancy savings within the department. The current planned hiring for the Fall of 2010 is expected to be 17 to 20 officers. The last hiring period was July of 2009. It is likely that by the time the class is trained there will be more vacancies than can be filled by the class. • The SLCPD Academy provides training for the department's recruits. The training consists of classroom work for 20 to 22 weeks and field work with a fully-trained partner for 14 weeks. Once accepted into the Academy,officers in training are issued all necessary equipment and uniform items at an estimated cost of$4,600 per recruit. Vehicles are issued at the end of the training period. According to the department,the SLCPD has been successful in retaining its officers. In the event of a separation of employment with the SLCPD,all items,except for boots,are returned to the department. 6. Sworn Officer Fitness Standard Implementation In the past,the SLCPD used the $50,000 of funding to determine the SLCPD fitness standards and purchase equipment for the Fitness Standard. This amount was reduced as part of the overall FY 2011 reduction plan. If the Council wishes to see this program implemented,the Council would need to provide funding and adopt an ordinance. The Council has requested implementation by legislative intent for several years. Non Staffing Related Items Revenues No changes have been proposed to Police Department revenue budgets. Expenditures 1. Decrease-$33,000-Charges/Services/Fees-The Police and Fire Departments share a city-wide radio system. The decrease of$33,000 in the Police Department budget is a reallocation of the shared maintenance costs to the Fire Department. 2. Decrease-$330,000-Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Efficiencies-The fleet fuel budget for FY 2011 is proposed to be$940,000,a decrease of$230,000 from FY 2010. The department also expects to save$100,000 in Fleet maintenance and repair costs. Although various fuel conservation efforts are being implemented as resources and technologies permit,according to the Administration most of the fleet fuel reduction is not a result of these conservation efforts. The following list includes,but is not limited to their joint initiatives: • Recent vehicles purchased employ Active Fuel Management technology. • The SLCPD is beginning to incorporate Hybrid vehicles where use and cost savings/benefits allow. 6 • Smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles are replacing larger vehicles. • A study of issues related to fuel use and engine idling is being conducted. According to the Chief of Police,an idling policy has been implemented. • Monitoring of fuel usage and mileage comparatives are used to formulate enhanced policies of conservation. • Off-duty use of department cars has been limited. • The SLCPD uses an Automatic Vehicle Locator system to identify and send the department car closest to the call. 3. Decrease-$24,000-Eliminate Desk Phones for Department Personnel with City Cell Phone-The Administration is proposing to reduce the budget for desk phones, provided the personnel has a City authorized cell phone. The Administration plans to monitor this initiative to see if it has a broader application and may reduce the current telephone costs of the City. ►Given the nature of the rapid technological changes in communication methods does the Council wish to discuss or study this issue along with other communication technology issues-i.e. Aircards,Analog vs Digital Radio System,etc? 4. Decrease-$122,000-Operational Costs of Narcotics Unit to Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA)-In order to have a more comprehensive drug enforcement effort, the Administration recommends that City's Narcotics Unit,which consists of one Sergeant and eight officers,be assigned to the DEA. The DEA has agreed to fund the$122,000 of operating costs for the Narcotics Unit. ADDITIONAL ISSUES THE COUNCIL MAY WISH TO CONSIDER ►The Police Department identified a need for an evidence storage facility and Liberty Precinct at the time the Public Safety Building bond initiative was initially proposed. The Public Safety Building bond initiative that passed did not include these facilities. These items are included in the Capital Improvements Project(CIP) list, but are not recommended for funding. The Council will receive a briefing on CIP items during the FY 2011 budget season. ►Council Staff has requested information from the Police Department regarding delaying the planned hire and training of a recruit class and technology best practices for Public Safety needs. The information can be provided to the Council as it becomes available. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following table provides some of the SLCPD programs and community activities: Initiative Description Additional Information Social Media The SLCPD continues to expand According to information its use of social media,including provided by the Police Twitter,MySpace,Facebook, Department,they have and YouTube. surpassed 100 arrests of those posted as most wanted on the Department's website. Volunteer Programs-Neighborhood Watch, Programs that channel citizen Neighborhood Watch-In Mobile Neighborhood Watch,and Operation volunteer efforts with the 2009,144 active groups,each Safe Passage SLCPD. with 5 to 40+members,or approximately 2,400 citizen volunteers. In 2009,members contributed 4,457 hours of service,including patrols,officer assists,DUI saturations and training;patrol checks,and issuing handicapped parking tickets. •Operation Safe Passage- Citizen volunteers watch neighborhood routes to provide www.slcmobilewatch.com "security"for children traveling to and from schools. Utah Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Project The goal of this program is to The SLCPD is working with (UPDCP) reduce exploitation of many federal,state,county and prescription drugs by: 1) city entities. Professionals, reducing availability for abuse, including those in the health, 2)increasing awareness of risk, treatment,medical,prevention, including harmful effects and and legal communities are also legal sanctions,and 3) in collaboration with the SLCPD. decreasing tolerance of non- medical related use. Crime Prevention/Detection for Business Outreach program for police Downtown Security Directors officers to meet with business Association-created by SLCPD owners to discuss crime issues volunteer coordinator to discuss as they relate to businesses. security problems in Downtown SLC. The group meets monthly. Salt Lake Valley Violent Gang Crime Task Salt Lake City,along with the Force FBI and other local jurisdictions,will work to enhance gang enforcement in the City and throughout the Valley will be the host agency. This program eliminates SLCPD's participation in the Metro Gang Task Force and focuses resources on violent offenders within jurisdiction. 8 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 11, 2010 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Richards cc: David Everitt, Frank Gray, Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Bob Farrington, Wilf Sommerkorn, Pat Comarell, Gina Chamness, LuAnn Clark, Orion Goff, Tim Harpst, Nancy Boskoff, Sam Guevara, Teresa Beckstrand, Mike Akerlow and Brent Beck The proposed budget for the Department of Community Development (CED) for fiscal year 2010-11 is $15,957,403 representing an overall increase in expenditures of $2,912,393 or 22.3% as compared to fiscal year 2009-10. The increase is attributed to the proposed transfer of two divisions (and their budgets) to CED, including the Engineering Division and Capital Asset Management. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CED) PROPOSED BUDGETS Adopted Proposed Percent 2009-10 2010-11 Difference Change Office of the Director(Land Use Appeals Board) $818,702 $702,221 ($116,481) (14.2%) Arts Council(Public Programs/Events,Public Art,Public Information/Technical Assistance, City Arts Grants,Facility Management, 339,499 305,163 (34,336) (10.1%) Salt Lake City Arts Board,Salt Lake Art Design Board) Building Services(One Stop Shop/Accela,BUZZ Center,Permits, Administration,Construction Inspections,Development Review,Housing 5,177,651 4,888,349 (289,302) (5.6%) Advisory&Appeals Board)AND Civil Enforcement(Ground Transportation and Zoning Enforcement) Capital Asset Management(Capital Planning and Procurement, Capital Asset Maintenance;Property Management,CIP Support) 462,426 - Economic Development(Small Business Development,Economic Development) 271,168 328,912 57,744 21.3% Engineering(Project Planning&Development,Construction,Special Improvement Districts,Public Way Regulation,Survey,GIS&Mapping) 4,163,840 - Housing&Neighborhood Development(Federal Grant Administration,CIP Administration,Housing Rehabilitation,Housing Trust 2,107,486 998,489 (1,108,997) (52.6%) Fund,Homeownership Program,Sister Cities Program,and Sorenson Unity Center) Planning(Strategic Planning,Urban Design,Master Planning, Community Planning,Subdivisions,Planning Commission,Historic 2,466,833 2,431,913 (34,920) (1.4%) Landmark Commission,and Board of Adjustment) Transportation(Planning&Design,Traffic Investigations and Operations,Permit Parking,Street Lighting,Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety, 1,863,671 1,676,090 (187,581) (10.1%) Trails Coordination,Transportation Master Planning,Transportation Advisory Board) Total $13,045,010 $15,957,403 $2,912,393 22.3% 1 POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE AND MAJOR BUDGET CHANGES Major Organizational Changes The Mayor's budget proposes to transfer the Engineering Division (from Public Services) and the Capital Asset Management function (from Administrative Services) to the Community and Economic Development Department, as well as create a new Civil Enforcement group under the Building Services division. These changes are addressed later in this report. Please note that merit increases, the 1.5% salary restoration, as well as pension and insurance increases are included in each division's proposed budget. Office of the Director The budget for the Office of the Director shows a decrease of 14.2% or $116,481 as compared to last year. The decrease can be attributed to the proposed elimination of two positions as noted below. # of FTE Projected Detail Savings .50 RPT $ 23,512 Eliminate vacant Sr. Secretary RPT position in CED Administration; may have to hire intern or part time person to assist with office coverage, although coverage is currently being provided by the RDA. 1.0 FTE 105,000 Eliminate Downtown Transportation Development Coordinator position (vacant);jointly funded by the City, Chamber and UTA. City's portion is $35,000. 1.5 FTEs $128,512 Total Arts Council The Arts Council budget indicates a decrease of $34,336, which is a reflection of the Public Art Program Manager's salary ($43,144) being allocated against public art projects, such as existing CIP projects, North Temple, and future projects. The Council may wish to note that this is a shift in funding rather than the elimination of an expenditure. Building Services Division The budget for the Building Services Division is projected to decrease by 5.6% or $289,302. The decrease is attributed to the elimination of positions as noted below. # of FTE Projected Detail Savings 1.0 FTE $84,596 Eliminate Bldg. Inspector Investigation Administrator (layoff); the Administration indicates there are enough certified employees in this division who can absorb this work. 1.0 FTE 56,882 Eliminate Office Facilitator II position (layoff); the responsibilities for this position will be absorbed by other employees. 1.0 FTE 83,076 Eliminate Sr. Bldg. Inspector position (layoff); this position handles field inspections. As the inspection demand has decreased, this work can be 2 absorbed by other inspectors until inspections increase. 1.0 FTE 84,168 Eliminate Fire Protection Engineer position (vacant- never filled). This item is discussed in the `Issues'portion of the staff report. 4.0 FTEs $308,722 Total Building Services Issues Elimination of Vacant Fire Protection Engineer Position CED Administration indicated that the funding appropriated to fill this position in previous years was inadequate. Several qualified candidates were interviewed but the salary was too low; the position was never filled. The Administration also indicates that the workload does not quite fill the time of 2 FTEs. As a result, the Division outsources the fire plan review. The Council may wish to ask whether the level of work previously outsourced will impact the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau and whether that department can absorb the workload. The Council may also wish to clarify whether the Administration will be relying upon the Fire Department or whether they will be relying on consulting services. If the Department relies upon consulting services, the Council should note the next item which is a $50,000 reduction in resources for outsourcing. $50,000 Reduction in Outsourcing Funding According to the proposed budget, $50,000 will be eliminated from Building Service's outsourcing funds for permits and plan review. CED Administration indicates that permit and plan review is outsourced in two instances: First, when specialized service is required, such as review for bridges, structural steel or LEED certification; second, when there is a backlog of plans and permits for staff to review. The Department indicates that although the Buzz Center is currently active with many customers, there has been a decrease in plans being submitted for review, and there is enough funding remaining in the budget to handle the anticipated outsourcing needs. The Council should note that as the economy improves or as specialty projects come in, the Administration may need to return to the Council to request additional funding in a budget opening. Building Permits Audit Council Members have expressed concerns with regards to the processing and timeframe of the issuance of building permits. The Council may wish to consider allocating funding for an extension of the Planning division review that was conducted two years ago. That study touched on processes relating to Building Services but a full review of Building Services and best practices around the country was not within the scope of that study. The following information was provided with regards to the different levels of permits issued by Building Services: • Over the counter permits (generally issued the same day) • Same day permit process • Permits requiring the standard review process (including design review, departmental review (Fire, Police, Transportation, Public Utilities, etc.) 3 Capital Asset Management Capital Asset Management has an operating budget of $29,157 and personnel costs (including salary and benefits) of$433,269. A total budget of $462,426 will be transferred to CED. Capital Asset Management staff includes 5.0 FTEs (a reduction from 6). In addition, the Mayor's budget proposes to reimburse 20% of the Capital Asset Management Director's salary from Capital Asset projects. The positions include 5.0 FTEs (a reduction from 6.0 FTEs) Division Director Sr. Administrative Analyst Real Property Manager (from Property Management) Real Property Agent (from Property Management) Office Tech II (from Property Management) # of FTE Projected Detail Savings 1.0 FTE 74,572 Eliminate one Real Property Agent position (layoff); responsibilities will be absorbed by other staff. 1.0 FTE $74,572 Total Creation of Civil Enforcement Unit As mentioned previously, the Administration proposes to house all enforcement functions (except parking enforcement) with the Housing and Zoning Enforcement group. The name will be changed from Housing 85 Zoning Enforcement to Civil Enforcement Unit (CEU). The CEU will include the functions and enforcement of snow removal, street artists and entertainers' ordinance, Housing 85 Zoning and Ground Transportation. The Council may wish to note that the additional functions will be absorbed by current personnel. No additional FTE positions are proposed. As indicated during the Airport budget discussion, the Administration is currently investigating the possibility of the Airport assuming the functions of Ground Transportation administration, licensing and enforcement. The Administration also proposes to transfer Ground Transportation facility maintenance costs to the Facilities Management Division in Public Services. This change reflects what other departments have done. 4 Proposed Ordinance Fee Increases Current Ordinance Proposed Increase Anticipated Revenue Sidewalk Artists& Increases civil penalty from$30.00 to Entertainers(14.38.110) $100.00 per violation Freight License sticker fee Increases freight sticker fee from$25.00 to $130,000 annually for sticker (12.56.330)and base $35.00 and requires base business license increase;$52,000 annually business license fee fee of$100.(Note:the freight sticker fee for base business license fee. (5.04.070) has not been increase in 20 years.) Ground Transportation Increases driver badging fee from$112 to $3,338 annually based on vehicle operator certificate $121 as follows: $2.00 badge increase application fee(5.71.290) $2.00 I.D.badge increase (The rest of the fee increase $5.00 increase in background check revenue goes towards $2.00 increase fingerprinting cost fingerprint&background check expenditures.) Educating the public regarding fee increases The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration has prepared notification and educational materials indicating the new fee structures and the effective dates, and if this will be distributed to all current mailing lists including contractors, business license holders,etc.,posted on public spaces and identified on the City's websites,as well as sent to community and business organizations. The Council may also wish to ask whether the Administration has met with the Business Advisory Board, Chamber of Commerce and other interest groups to review the proposed fee changes. Economic Development Division The budget for Economic Development is projecting an increase of$57,744 or 21.3%,which reflects the request for a new position,a Small Business Liaison. The Administration indicates that the Small Business Liaison will serve as the main point of contact to assist small businesses in navigating through City operations, processes and services. In addition, this individual will act as an ombudsman to maintain communication between the City and the small business community and advocate for,and make recommendations on relevant issues,processes,policies and procedures that may affect small businesses. Currently,this position is being filled by anintern. #of FTE Projected Detail Cost 1.0 FTE $74,100 New: Add Small Business Liaison position;currently this position is filled by an intern. 1.0 FTE $74,100 Total Also, the Administration requests to allocate 20%of the Economic Development Director's salary against the Central Business Improvement Area 2010 in the 5 amount of$26,905.This represents a significant policy shift. The Council may wish to ask whether the special assessment area property owners are aware of this request. The City incurs significant maintenance costs for that improvement area but currently none of those costs are allocated to the districts. The Council may wish to determine whether all costs can or should be allocated for that district. Engineering Division According to the Mayor's proposed budget,the Administration indicates this transfer will assist with the coordination of planning review and response, and increase efficiencies by consolidating all engineering planning functions under one department. At this time,the Administration indicates engineering personnel will still be housed in the engineering office. Engineering has an operating budget of$287,446 and personnel costs(including salary and benefits) of$3,876,394. A total budget of$4,163,840 will be transferred to CED. The Engineering division includes 46 FTEs(full time equivalent positions), a reduction from 52 FTEs, assuming the Council adopts the proposed layoffs and elimination of vacant positions. #of FTE Salary 8c Detail benefits 1.0 FTE $122,061 Eliminate Sr.Engineering Project Mgr.position(layoff).Loss of revenue from engineering fees billed to CIP associated w/this reduction is($84,000). Net savings is$38,061.This position is the project manager for design, inspection construction contracts for ADA sidewalk ramps and other sidewalk replace&repairs. Other personnel will have to assume additional responsibilities. 1.0 FTE 96,084 Eliminate Engineer IV position in Engineering(layoff).Loss of revenue associated w/this position is($76,000).Net savings is$20,084.This position designs and manages sidewalk projects.Elimination of position will impact the City's ability to complete unplanned high-priority projects.Other personnel will have to assume additional responsibilities. 1.0 FTE 61,208 Eliminate Engineering Tech IV in Engineering(vacant).Responsibilities include permit inspector on permitted work in the public way. Eliminating this position will require 3 inspectors to absorb the workload. 1.0 FTE 55,412 Eliminate Engineering Records Tech position in Engineering(layoff). Responsibilities include responding to records requests for engineering documents and information. 1.0 FTE 72,132 Eliminate GIS programmer/analyst position in Engineering(vacant). Responsibilities include participating in the development of paperless work flow,working with internal and external engineering customers. 1.0 FTE 74,488 Eliminate Professional Surveyor position in Engineering(vacant).Loss of engineering fees associated with this position is($18,000)for a net savings of$56,488.This change will limit the number of survey activities that can be conducted by the entire survey group;Engineering will not be able to maintain 2 survey crews when one surveyor is using vacation or sick leave. 6.0 FTEs i Total projected net savings of$303,385 6 Housing and Neighborhood Development Division The budget for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division reflects a decrease of$1,108,997 or 52.6%. As the Council will recall,the management of the Sorenson Center was transferred to Salt Lake County,resulting in a decrease of 18.51 FTEs. The salary savings associated with this change is$912,296 and operating costs savings of$179,584. These savings will offset the County's annual contract costs to run the Center for$880,878. #of FTE Projected Detail Savings 1.0 FTE $62,308 Eliminate Rehab Loan Officer position(layoff);responsibilities will be shared with other rehab specialists and staff. 26,802 Capital Planning Community Development Planner position(layoff);606 position is being eliminated and a new 604 position is being created. (Both positions are partially federally funded,but federal funding has not increased to match increasing employee costs borne by General Fund.) 1.0 FTE $89,110 Total Planning Division The Planning Division projects a budget decrease of 1.4%or$34,920. The personnel services budget will increase due to the 1.5%salary restoration,health insurance, merit and pension increases. This is partially offset by the projected savings from the eliminated positions. #of FTE Projected Detail Savings 1.0 FTE $71,908 Eliminate GIS Specialist position in Planning(layoff) 1.0 FTE 53,152 Eliminate Sr.Secretary position in Planning(vacant) 2.0 FTEs $125,060 Total Planning Issues GIS Functions As proposed in the Mayor's Recommended budget, Planning's GIS Specialist position will be eliminated (as well as the Sr. Secretary position). In addition, the vacant Transportation GIS Analyst position and the vacant GIS Programmer/analyst position in Engineering are being eliminated. CED Administration indicates that the Planners can print their own maps and that the City purchased a citywide license for all to access GIS. The Council may wish to ask whether these three cuts will be detrimental to the City's overall GIS needs. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration for a recommendation to address GIS needs citywide. In making these cuts,the Administration has indicated the intention to centralize the GIS function within IMS. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether IMS currently has adequate resources to continue progress with the GIS system or whether they will be returning to the Council in the future to request the necessary resources to move GIS ahead in a centralized way. It is Council staffs assumption that once GIS is consolidated under IMS,the Administration will need to return to the Council for funding,so this should not be considered a long-term savings. Zoning Ordinance Update Council Members expressed interest in understanding the costs and resources needed to update the City's zoning ordinance. In response, CED Administration has indicated three potential options: 1. Comprehensive rewrite of Zoning Ordinance: If the Council elects to change the current format(Euclidian)to a form-based approach,an approximate cost is$1.5 to 2 million,with an estimated timeframe of two to three years for completion. 2. Recodify/reformat Zoning Ordinance: If the Council chooses this option, the zoning ordinance would be more user-friendly and readable. The cost would be approximately$500,000 with an anticipated timeframe of 9-12 months. 3. Create a design standards manual: This option would cost between$500,000 and$800,000 with an estimated timeframe of 12-18 months. An annual review process would be required. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a detailed recommendation, including necessary staffing resources,outside consulting services and necessary technology for each of these options. Master Plans The Council has also expressed interest in understanding the process for updating master plans. The Administration indicates the Mayor would like to take a`6X6' approach,which is to complete six master plans per year for the next six years. The Council may wish to ask how this approach may be accomplished and what resources would be necessary. The Planning Division has provided the following information with regards to the status of their priorities: Master and Small Area Plans currently in process: 1.Euclid 2.North Temple Corridor 3.Northwest Quadrant Master and Small Area Plans which are in the queue but put on hold to deal with higher priorities: 1. Downtown Master Plan 2. West Salt Lake Community Plan 8 3.U Edge Plan Broader plans currently in process: 1.Historic Preservation(almost completed,very close) 2.Comprehensive Sustainability Ordinance 3.Neighborhood Business Project Northwest Quadrant Funding(Non-Departmental Budget) The Mayor's recommended budget includes a request for$100,000 of one-time funding for any follow up and public process relating to the Northwest Quadrant area. This request is included in the Non-Departmental budget. Good Landlord Program The Mayor's proposed budget does not include funding for implementation of the Good Landlord program.The Administration anticipates that employee salaries associated with this function will be funded through program fees. A proposal will be advanced to the Council later in the year during a budget opening,possibly late summer. Transportation Division The Transportation Division's budget reflects a projected decrease of 10.1%or $187,581. The decrease is attributed to the proposed reductions itemized in the chart below. #of FTE Projected Detail Savings 1.0 FTE $63,840 Eliminate Traffic Control Ctr.Operator I position in Transportation(layoff); this position synchronizes signals to adjust for excessive traffic. With the elimination,the City may receive additional complaints re:signal timing. 1.0 FTE 59,084 Eliminate Office Facilitator II position in Transportation(layoff);this position assists with the Neighborhood Parking permit process. Treasurer's Office may be able to assist with this process after some training. Other duties will be reassigned. 1.0 FTE 69,160 Eliminate GIS Analyst position in Transportation(vacant) 3.0 FTEs $192,084 Total Transportation Issues Parking Meter Replacement with Electronic Pay Stations The Transportation Administration indicates that a consultant recently completed a study of the options for converting parking meters to electronic pay stations. A committee of City and Downtown Alliance staff oversaw the analysis and will submit a recommendation to the Mayor for consideration,which will then be forwarded to the Council. With respect to converting meters to pay stations,the consultant estimates it will take about a year to implement, and could cost as much as$6.9 million. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a response to the following questions: 9 1. Has the Mayor received the recommendation? 2. Does the recommendation include the total replacement of meters or the use of a portion of existing meter parts? 3. Could the RFP process be completed in 6 months if the funding were available? Downtown Parking Management Program The Council has inquired regarding the status of the Downtown Parking Management Program. Transportation Administration indicates an RFP has been prepared and is being reviewed by Purchasing. The consultant would be tasked with determining what type of parking management organizational structure would be best suited for the City.A set of goals is being prepared to send to Council for comment to insure that the consultant knows what is desired to be achieved. The Parking Management entity could be a City department or a parking authority, or a non-profit created by or hired by the City to do the work. Until the study is complete, it is not known what form would work best,how much it would cost(or if it would/could have taxing ability) to run or how long to implement. The study should be completed within six months once the consultant is selected and given the notice to proceed. The Council may wish to ask whether it is the Administration's intent to delay a decision on meter replacement until the parking management program is addressed. $35,000 Reduction of Street Light Maintenance Funding The Mayor's budget proposes a reduction in street light maintenance. In order to reduce the maintenance budget, some damaged street lights may be capped instead of replaced, reducing the number of functioning lights. $400,000 Proposed Savings from Elimination of Mid-block Street Lighting The Administration indicates that maintenance and operating savings can be achieved if mid-block street lights are turned off. Note:According to CED Administration, this proposal does not include mid-block street lighting in the Downtown. All lights would work initially, but as the less significant lights have bulb burnouts or other maintenance issues, they would be left dark until funding would be made available. Savings would be$4.00 per month per light on maintenance, in addition to electricity costs saved on the non-working lights. According to CED Administration, the Transportation Division is creating a plan to address costs and options. This item is included in the Non-Departmental budget. $8,500 Transfer of Maintenance budget to Facilities in Public Services The Administration proposes to transfer traffic control center maintenance costs to the Department of Public Services Facilities Management budget. This change reflects what other departments have done. 10 Additional Information LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS 1. Bike Lanes-It is the intent of the Council that when the Administration evaluates streets for rehabilitation projects,preference would be given to streets with bike lanes. Response from the Administration: The City addresses street rehabilitation using the'zone concept',rotating attention annually between seven zones,and treating the streets with the most need within the particular zone. Of those streets most in need, streets with bike lanes are given priority. ITERIM STUDY ITEM 1. Ground Transportation:The Administration has forwarded a Quarterly Report on Council Interim Study Items. This response provides additional information with regards to Ground Transportation,including the status of additional enforcement, evaluation of fees,as well as an update on the RFP process: Response from the Administration: A time and motion study of the Ground Transportation function was requested by the City Council.The study included the time period between June 29, 2009 and September 30,2009.Based on the available study information, 458.5 hours were spent on enforcement,with an additional 50 hours spent on investigations. During the same time period, 79 citations and 30 warnings were issued for a total of 109. Between October 1, 2009 and the end of the year, 16 more citations were issued and one warning. Citations and warnings continue to be issued as required. There are planned and ongoing stings involving both the ground transportation industry and hotel doormen. The age of taxicab vehicles has been the latest enforcement effort which requires such vehicles to be no older than 6 model years or 8 model years if an approved alternative fueled engine(note: there is a grandfather clause also). These actions have generated a significant response from the taxi industry resulting in a current ongoing review of City Council's intent for this age limitation. There is ongoing enforcement involving both the ground transportation industry and hotel doormen. On a recent weekend evening 12 citations were issued and forwarded to the City Attorney for screening. A grace period on the age limit of ll taxi was granted until Council takes further action on the ordinance changes. Fee Evaluation:The Council asked for an evaluation of the fees and potential fees to be considered for Ground Transportation. Fees are based on cost recovery and staff salaries and time are all part of that cost recovery. Finance has completed a time study and calculated a fully loaded hourly rate which has been applied to the processes of the background history check/ID Badge and vehicle inspections. The fully loaded hourly rate equals$67.70. Background History Check/ID Badge:When the hourly rate is applied to the background history check/ID Badge process the fee for that service could be increased to$121 from the current$112 which includes the$47.25 for the BCI background check and a separate$3 for TSA fee. Vehicle Inspections:When the hourly rate is applied to the vehicle inspection process the current fee of$90 per inspection is justified.This fee includes time allocated for missed inspections, rejected vehicle re-inspections,meter recalibrations and special vehicle types. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Community and Economic Development Department. During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions to be added to the Council's list for future audits. 12 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 4,2010 SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst CC: David Terry,Bryce Lindeman,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Greg Davis,Nancy Sanders,David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Cindy Gust- Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,Sylvia Richards,Lehua Weaver The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates eight golf facilities (nine golf courses -Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses) as an Enterprise Fund. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an accessible, reasonably priced recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfing public;to preserve open spaces in an urban setting;and to promote tourism and economic development. Golf participants pay fees that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally balances golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf Enterprise Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market. The Administration is not proposing a fee increase in Fiscal Year 2011. Fees were increased during last year's budget process and became effective January 1, 2010. This was the first across-the-board golf fee increase since 2004. The fiscal year 2010-11 revenue budget of$8,614,547 is estimated to decrease by$17,831, or 0.2 %below the revenue budget for fiscal year 2009-10. The proposed FY 2010-11 expenditure budget of $8,429,345 is projected to be $92,278 more than the prior year, an increase of 1.1%. The projected change to net assets for fiscal year 2011 (revenues exceeding expenditures)is estimated to be a$185,202 net increase to the Golf Fund Balance. This is approximately$110,000 less than FY 2010. Total Capital Improvement Projects(CIP)of$877,547 are included in the expenditures of the Golf Fund- 1) Cash Capital Outlay of$110,000 for equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, 2) Debt Service for maintenance equipment and carts of$509,372,and 3)Debt Service(ends FY2014) for golf carts(Pro shop)of$258,174. BUDGET SUMMARY-GOLF FUND • No golf fee increases have been proposed for FY2011. • Estimated golf revenues are expected to decrease by$17,831 as compared to the FY 2009-10 budget. • Estimated golf expenditures,excluding debt service and capital outlay are expected to have an overall increase of$26,296. • Cash Capital outlay is budgeted at$190,000 less than the prior year. This allows a net operating income or operating contingency of$185,202 should revenue projections not be met due to inclement weather or continued effects of the recent economy. • The Golf Division plans to finance additional golf maintenance equipment which is in need of replacement. 10 • Requests for proposals for the Rose Park golf property sale are due to the City on April 30. If approved,the sale of the property cannot be finalin-d until six months after the March 2, 2010 public hearing. • The Administration will present its recommendation to fund and address deferred maintenance and improvement projects for the City's golf courses. The identified projects are estimated to cost$22 million. The following is the FY 2010-11 proposed budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Reseuue&other sources --- Green fees $ 4,839,000 i'•? 57.3% $ 100,804 2.1% Cart rental 2,040,200 23.4% 21,000 -1.0% Drivin:ran:e fees 342,200 4.0% 2,813 0.8% Concessions 191,600 1.4% 70,400 -36.7% Retail Sales 809,200 9.4% (200) 0.0% Other Golf Fees 120,750 ? 1.0% 37,748 -31.3% Advertisin:fees 14,000 „i3lt'ta 0.3% 9,000 64.3% Interest income 30,000 :n20,000 0.2% (10,000) -33.3% Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 30,428 30,428 0.4% - 0.0% Revenue Season.asses 215,000 p23,900 2.6% 8,900 4.1% Other/Admission Sales 0 0 0.0% -- Total rewnue&other sources $ 8,632,378 ?t' 8,614,547 100.0% $ (17,831) -0.2% F�.•nses&other uses 1111.111�� •.emtin_&Maintenance AMIE Personal Services $ 3,718062 3,778,167 44.8% $ 60,105 1.6% Materials and Su..lies 1,267,285•. 1,159,857 13.8% (107,428) -8.5% Other(Charges/Services/Fees, 2,518,846 2.592,465 30.8% 73,619 2.9% Admin Service Fee,PILOT, Intradepartmental Chgs,Water, Fuel,Utilities) Ca.ital outla 300,000 110.000 1.3% 190,000 -63.3% Transfers Out 16,176 21,310 0.3"/ 5,134 31.7% Debt Related 0.0% Debt for Facilities and - 0.0% -_ Uri:anon Debt for Maintenance 516,690 767,546 9.1% 250,848 48.5% .ui.ment and Golf Carts Total e .•rises&other uses $ 8,337,067 $ 8,429.345 100.0% $ 92,278 1.1% Chan•a in net assets $ 295.31 1 $ 185,202 $ (110,109) -13% BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the proposed revenue and expenditure changes to the budget are highlighted below. The"►"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. REVENUES 1. Total Revenue and Other Sources-Overall decrease-($17,831) a. Increase-Green Fees and Cart Rental Fees-$79,804 Fee increases approved for fiscal year 2010 became effective January 1,2010. As a result,the green fee revenues of$4,939,804 are budgeted$100,804 higher for fiscal year 2011. The revenue budge of$2,019,200 for cart rental has been decreased by$21,000 from the prior year. Rounds of golf are expected to remain at roughly 477,000 rounds,which is similar to the FY 2010 projection. Additionally,driving range fees,advertising,and season pass 2 revenue budgets are expected to increase by$20,713 over the prior year. Economic conditions and unfavorable weather are factors that impact revenues and rounds of golf played during the year. According to the Administration,the City's prices,quality product,and pass programs are better or comparable to other golf courses in the community. b. Decrease-Concessions,Merchandise Sales,Other Fees,and Interest Income- ($118,148)Budget revenue for concessions is down by$70,400,largely due to outsourcing the café operations at Nibley Park. Other golf fees show a decrease of $37,748 because merchandise certificates of$40,000 are now being reflected in the budget. This budget change more accurately reflects how the merchandise certificates were being accounted for on the financial statements. In addition,the budget for interest income has been reduced by$10,000 for fiscal year 2011. The following chart is the golf customer fee-related actual revenues-green fees,cart rentals, driving range,and concessions-for the past eight years. The current and proposed fiscal year budgets are also provided for your information. %Increase Driving Over Prior Year Green Fees Cart Rental Range Retail Sales Total Year 2002 $ 4,610,868 $ 1,751,798 $ 357,797 $ 682,942'S 7,403,405 2003 $ 4,816,308 $ 1,761,090 $ 328,325 $ 741,442'S 7,647,165 3.3% 2004 $ 4,592,025 $ 1,711,052 $ 309,484 $ 707,037'S 7,319,598 4.3% 2005 $ 4,543,923 $ 1,624,874 $ 309,807 $ 710,631 $ 7,189,235 -1.8% 2006 $ 4,710,943 $ 1,763,267 $ 321,525 $ 781,093 r$ 7,576,828 5.4% 2007 $ 4,763,272 $ 1,951,157 $ 334,510 $ 827,788 $ 7,876,727 4.0% 2008 $ 4,483,569 $ 1,912,527 S 328,519 $ 807,905 $ 7,532,520 -4.4% 2009 $ 4,519,334 $ 1,882,413 $ 330,452 $ 772,120 $ 7,504,319 -0.4% Budgeted 2010 $ 4,839,000 $ 2,040,200 $ 342,200 $ 809,200 $ 8,030,600 7.0% Proposed 2011 $ 4,939,804 $ 2,019,200 $ 345,013 $ 809,000 $ 8,113,017 1.0% Note: Green Fees in all years prior to 2009 included the sales of Frequent Player Discount cards.The amount budgeted for 2009 for the FPD card is$120,000. Marketing,Advertising,and Promotion Efforts The Salt Lake City Golf Division plans to host over 30 state-level annual tournaments, Corporate and group outings,which are held daily throughout the summer,are also held at the City's golf courses. In addition,the Golf Department plans to market and target their services,courses,and promotions to various groups including,youth,parent/junior,men's and women's clubs,and frequent players. 2. Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011-Projected Revenue and Expenditure Budgets and FY 2008 and 2009 Actuals by Golf Course The following table presents the actual and projected revenue and expense activity for each of the City's golf courses. The expense line includes debt service and administrative overhead costs. Administrative overhead costs include golf fund management and office expenses, including supplies, accounting, information technology,insurance,and other costs of operating the Golf Division. ►A detailed explanation of how the Golf Division plans to fund and address the operational and capital needs of each course will be further addressed in the Capital Improvements Projects briefing. 3 FY 2011 Proposed FY 2038 FY 2009 FY 2010 Budget Budget Total Information Only-Administration-Costs Allocated to Golf Courses Revenue $ 279,005 $ 227,634 $ 299,000 $ 275,400 $ 1,081,039 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 797,440 $ 862,138 $ 1,181,687 $ 1,296,733 $ 4,137,998 Netlncome after ODA $ (518,435) $ (634,504) $ (882,687) $ (1,021,333) $ (3,056,959) Bonneville Revenue $ 1,381,978 $ 1,310,394 $ 1,435,200 $ 1,463,198 $ 5,590,770 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,113,862 $ 1,125,593 $ 1,223,352 $ 1,248,650 $ 4,711,457 Net Income after ODA $ 268,116 $ 184,801 $ 211,848 $ 214,548 $ 879,313 Glendale Revenue $ 1,120,146 $ 1,130,708 $ 1,181,700 $ 1,213,450 $ 4,646,004 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs $ 1,268,304 $ 1,091,763 $ 1,172,519 $ 1,195,813 $ 4,728,399 Net Income after ODA $ (148,158) $ 38,945 $ 9,181 $ 17,637 $ (82,395) Forest Dale $ - Revenue $ 677,073 $ 637,635 $ 697,216 $ 658,145 $ 2,670,069 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 524,777 $ 579,622 $ 600,523 $ 631,212 $ 2,336,134 Net Income after ODA $ 152,296 $ 58,013 $ 96,693 $ 26,933 $ 333,935 Mountain Dell $ - Revenue $ 1,954,402 $ 1,895,441 $ 2,114,200 $ 2,062,100 $ 8,026,143 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,706,598 $ 1,579,782 $ 1,702,770 $ 1,780,541 $ 6,769,691 Net Income after ODA $ 247,804 $ 315,659 $ 411,430 $ 281,559 $ 1,256,452 Nibley Park $ - Revenue $ 585,252 $ 560,271 $ 601,812 $ 572,984 $ 2,320,319 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 693,052 $ 628,697 $ 723,698 $ 663,403 $ 2,708,850 Net Income after ODA $ (107,800) $ (68,426) $ (121,886) $ (90,419) $ (388,531) Rose Park $ - Revenue $ 869,941 $ 923,373 $ 946,550 $ 962,400 $ 3,702,264 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 967,810 $ 1,051,369 $ 1,093,187 $ 1,156,776 $ 4,269,142 Net Income after ODA $ (97,869) $ (127,996) $ (146,637) $ (194,376) $ (566,878) Wingpointe $ Revenue $ 1,153,898 $ 1,211,091 $ 1,279,700 $ 1,316,370 $ 4,961,059 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,352,294 $ 1,158,491 $ 1,320,147 $ 1,254,299 $ 5,085,231 Net Income after ODA $ (198,396) $ 52,600 $ (40,447) $ 62,071 $ (124,172) Jordan RNer $ - Revenue $ 65,694 $ 86,324 $ 77,000 $ 90,500 $ 319,518 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 187,642 $ 204,714 $ 201,873 $ 223,252 $ 817,481 Net Income after ODA $ (121,948) $ (118,390) $ (124,873) $ (132,752) $ (497,963) Total Golf Fund Revenue $ 7,808,384 $ 7,755,237 $ 8,333,378 $ 8,339,147 $ 32,236,146 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 8,032,386 $ 7,420,031 $ 8,038,069 $ 8,153,946 $ 31,426,385 Net Income after ODA $ (224,002) $ 335,206 $ 295,309 $ 185,201 $ 809,761 EXPENDITURES 1. Staffing Changes-Full Time FTEs will remain at 40.4. Part-time positions are 48.61 FTEs. 2. Increase-Personal Services-$60,105 The FY 2011 personnel costs are proposed to be $3,778,167. Most of the increase in this budget item is due to the elimination of the FY 2010 City-wide salary suspension program of 1.5%of salaries. 3. Decrease-Retail Merchandise Purchases-($24,800)The Administration estimates the rounds of golf will not increase in FY 2011 because of the current economy and the recent fee increase. Retail sales are expected to remain flat in FY 2011. As a result the budget amount for merchandise purchased for resale will decrease. 4 4. Decrease-Materials and Supplies,excluding retail merchandise($107,428) The Administration proposes to decrease many of the materials and supplies expenditure budget. Some of the larger budget decreases include • Concession expenses related to operation of the café at Nibley Park-$38,000 • Parts and accessories-$14,000 • Repairs-$8,750 • Junior golf supplies-$8,000 • Chemicals-$5,000 • Retail merchandise sales-$24,800-mentioned above • Miscellaneous accounts-$8,878 5. Increase-Water,Fuel,Maintenance,and Miscellaneous Operating Costs-$33,619 The overall net change to the Charges/Services/Fees budget category is relatively small. However,increases of approximately$103,000 were absorbed by other budgeted line item decreases in this category. Some of the larger budgeted increases include: • Water-$23,000 • Fleet fuel and maintenance-$25,500 • Unemployment comp premium-$5,300 • P.I.L.O.T. (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)-$33,689 • IMS(Information Management Systems)interdepartmental charge for accounting software $10,000 Expenditure budgets were decreased to offset the increases. Larger decreases occurred in the following accounts: • City engineering and architect fees-$15,000 • Other professional and technical fees-$6,500 • Electrical and natural gas-$10,154 • Educational training and travel-$10,350 • Risk management property premium-$22,048 • Employee bus pass allocation-$5,286 6. Increase-Debt Service Expense-$250,848 The Golf Division plans to finance the purchase of golf course maintenance equipment. The increase to the budget is for the first of the three annual payments. 7. Decrease-Cash Capital Outlay-($190,000)The Golf Division has budgeted$110,000 in Equipment and Facilities. Last year,the capital outlay budget was$300,000. This budget is the amount available to spend on larger needs of the golf division after debt service payments and a net income on operations of just under$200,000. According to the Administration, the budget will be used primarily for emergency golf course maintenance equipment purchases and facility repairs. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS-$22,000,000-(Note:A separate staff report has been prepared for the Administration's proposal. The Council briefing is scheduled for May 4, 2010.) In the past,the Golf Fund Manager and Administration have met with Council Members to review various funding options and strategies to fund approximately$22 million in Capital Improvement Projects. A transmittal proposing how the improvements will be funded has been submitted by the Administration. This proposal,which includes options,such as,transferring surplus golf course property to the General Fund or rezoning and selling surplus golf course property,is scheduled to be briefed to the Council on May 4th. 5 LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS Fiscal Year 2009-10 2008-13:Golf Update It is the intent of the City Council that the Golf Fund Manager provide a mid-year update on the status of deferred capital project needs. Administrative Response The Golf Division has met with Administration,the City Council Budget&Finance Subcommittee, and individual City Council Members with golf courses in their districts to discuss a funding proposal to complete golf course irrigation improvements and other long deferred capital projects totaling$20M.In April 2009,the Administration directed the Golf Manager to complete the due diligence process necessary to develop recommendations relative to each of the potential funding sources,and then report back to the Administration and City Council in September 2009.Golf staff has finalized its report but still needs to present it to the Administration and City Council.That briefing will take place during the first quarter of calendar year 2010.Potential funding sources that will be investigated include the transfer of surplus real estate to the General Fund,the disposition of surplus real estate,a partnership with the University of Utah,a partnership with the Utah Golf Association and the Utah PGA,partnerships with our existing clubhouse food and beverage concessionaires,a private and corporate donor program,the Energy Performance Contract program for irrigation projects,and bonding. 6 City Council Announcements May 18, 2010 A. Information Needed by Council Staff 1. The Salt Lake Chamber "Giant in Our City" event is being held this Thursday, May 20th at The Grand America Hotel. A 6:00 p.m. reception will be followed by dinner and program at 7:00 p.m. The event will be held in the Grand Ballroom at The Grand America Hotel. Council Member Martin and Council Member Christensen are attending. Would any other Council Members like to attend? 2. Council Member Martin, Council Member Christensen and Council Member Turner will be touring Salt Lake City Golf Courses that have portions of proposed land for sale. The tour is scheduled for this Friday, May 21st at 2:00 p.m. Would any other Council Members like to attend? 3. With regards to the Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Project (SNBA) the Planning Division is working on completing a survey of residents located in neighborhood business areas. The survey is attached for your review. A sample of the testing has been completed, and suggestions implemented. The survey will be conducted in a door-to-door method, and is anticipated to receive feedback from 100 people per area. Information about the Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Project is online, with an upcoming link to a survey for all interested. The Planning Division would like to move forward with obtaining results from the 10 areas designated in the attached maps. Is the Council comfortable with the Planning Division moving forward? Does the Council have any changes or suggestions? Are there Council Members interested in placing the web link in their next periodic email update? 1 • SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 Hi, this is from Dan Jones &Associates, a professional research company. We're conducting a brief survey on behalf of Salt Lake City regarding existing neighborhood businesses, specifically, about the ntersection of . Your answers will help the City make decisions about zoning. May I ask you some questions? (about 15 minutes) 1) First, how would you rate the overall quality of life in Salt Lake City(your neighborhood...)? Please use a 1-5 scale, with one meaning poor and five meaning excellent. 1/ Poor 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5/ Excellent 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 2) Thinking about your immediate neighborhood, would you say that having businesses located in your neighborhood is more positive or negative? Definitely negative 1 Probably negative 2 Neither positive nor negative 3 Probably positive 4 Definitely positive 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 3) What things do you like about the businesses in your neighborhood? (SPECIFY) 4) What do you dislike about the businesses in your neighborhood? (SPECIFY) 5) What general types of businesses would you prefer to have in your neighborhood? (IF NECESSARY: "Neighborhood is your immediate vicinity.") (Show card) Small neighborhood-oriented businesses 1 Large retail or super center stores 2 Small groups of businesses that create a cluster 3 A mix of small and large retail facilities 4 None 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 6) Are there any other types of businesses that you would like to have in your neighborhood? (SPECIFY) ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 1 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 ' 7) Are there any business types you would prefer not to have? Why? (SPECIFY) 8) If there were a vacant corner lot in your neighborhood, what type of use would you prefer in that space? Residential 1 Commercial 2 Something else (SPECIFY BELOW) 3 Don't know (DO NOT READ) 4 9) Would you favor or oppose having multiple-use buildings in your neighborhood, that is, buildings with more than one occupant type? An example would be a building with a store or office downstairs and an apartment or a condominium upstairs. Strongly favor 1 Somewhat favor 2 Neither favor nor oppose 3 Somewhat oppose 4 Strongly oppose 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 Other 7 10)The city is facing a problem with its zoning ordinances. Over time, areas of the city have been rezoned to residential, but they still have small businesses in them. Would you favor or oppose rezoning these properties to reflect their actual use? Strongly favor 1 Somewhat favor 2 Neither favor nor oppose 3 Somewhat oppose 4 Strongly oppose 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 11) How well do you know the owners or employees of any nearby businesses? Very well 1 Somewhat well 2 Not very well 3 Not at all 4 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 5 ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 2 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 12) [IF YES] Would you describe your overall relationship with them as positive or negative? Very positive Somewhat positive Indifferent; neither positive nor negative Somewhat negative Very negative Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) Other(DO NOT READ, SPECIFY) Now I'd like you to consider three different types of commercial properties that might exist in your neighborhood, and issues that sometimes go with them. 13) The first type is food service. Are you aware of any food service businesses in your immediate neighborhood? Yes (SPECIFY )..1 No (SKIP TO 30) 2 Don't know/ refuse 3 [IF YES] Considering this business (these businesses), please rate the impact that each of the following issues has had on you as a neighbor, using a scale of 1-5 (where one means no impact at all and five means very large impact). No impact Very large Don't Mean at all impact know score 14) Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 15) Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 5 6 16) Number of people coming and going 1 2 3 4 5 6 17) Appearance/design/ look 1 2 3 4 5 6 18) Type of people who go there 1 2 3 4 5 6 19) Drive-up windows (traffic or noise from) 1 2 3 4 5 6 20) Number of businesses or their size 1 2 3 4 5 6 21) Noise and light 1 2 3 4 5 6 22) Traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 6 23) Any other concerns? (SPECIFY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 3 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 25) The next commercial type is office (examples: insurance, accountant, dentist). Are you aware of any offices in your immediate neighborhood? Yes (SPECIFY ) 1 No (SKIP TO 39) 2 Don't know/ refuse 3 [IF YES] Considering this office (these offices), please rate the impact of the following issues, again on a scale of 1-5 (no impact at all to very large impact). No impact Very large Don't Mean at all impact know score 26) Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 27) Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 5 6 28) Number of people coming and going 1 2 3 4 5 6 29) Appearance/design/ look 1 2 3 4 5 6 30) Type of people who go there 1 2 3 4 5 6 31) Number of businesses or their size 1 2 3 4 5 6 32) Noise and light 1 2 3 4 5 6 33) Traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 6 34) Any other concerns? (SPECIFY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 35) The last commercial type is retail (examples: stores, pharmacies). Are you aware of any retail businesses in your immediate neighborhood? Yes (SPECIFY )••1 No (SKIP TO 49) 2 Don't know/ refuse 3 [IF YES] Considering retail businesses in your neighborhood, what impact do the following have? No impact Very large Don't Mean at all impact know score 36) Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 37) Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 5 6 38) Number of people coming and going 1 2 3 4 5 6 39) Appearance/design/ look 1 2 3 4 5 6 40) Type of people who go there 1 2 3 4 5 6 41) Drive-up windows (traffic or noise from) 1 2 3 4 5 6 42) Number of businesses or their size 1 2 3 4 5 6 43) Noise and light 1 2 3 4 5 6 44) Traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 6 45) Any other concerns? (SPECIFY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 4 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 I'm going to read a list of possible concerns regarding current businesses already established in your neighborhood. Please rate your level of concern about these issues on a 1-5 scale, where one means not at all concerned and five means very concerned. Not at all Very Don't concerned concerned know 47)Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 48)Type of use (residential or commercial) 1 2 3 4 5 6 49)Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 5 6 50)Number of people coming and going 1 2 3 4 5 6 51)Noise and light 1 2 3 4 5 6 52)Traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 6 53)Any other concerns? (SPECIFY BELOW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 54) "Home occupation" describes a business that is operated out of a home. Considering your neighborhood, how concerned are you about businesses that operate out of a home? Use a 1-5 scale, where one means not at all concerned and five means very concerned. Not at all 1 2 3 4 Very concerned 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 55) Would you like to see a change in the number of businesses in your immediate neighborhood? Definitely more 1 Probably more 2 No change; keep the same 3 Probably fewer 4 Definitely fewer 5 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 56) (IF YES)What changes would you like to see? 57) Would you like to see a change in the type of businesses in your immediate neighborhood? Yes, definitely 1 Yes, probably 2 No, probably not 3 No, definitely not 4 Don't know/ refuse (DO NOT READ) 5 ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 5 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 58) (IF YES)What changes would you like to see? 59) Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make? Now just a few questions for categorization purposes... 60) Gender Male 1 Female 2 61) In which age category do you belong? <25 1 25-29 2 30-39 3 40-49 4 50-59 5 60-69 6 70+ 7 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 8 62) Do you have any children under the age of 18 living at home with you? Yes 1 No 2 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 3 63) Including yourself, how many people live at your residence? One 1 Two 2 Three 3 Four 4 Five 5 Six or more 6 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 7 64) What is your approximate annual family income category? Less than $15,000 1 $15,000 - $24,999 2 $25,000 - $34,999 3 $35,000 - $44,999 4 $45,000 - $54,999 5 $55,000 - $64,999 6 $65,000 - $100,000 7 Over $100,000 8 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 9 ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 6 SLC Small Business Zoning 2010 65) Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? Caucasian /White 1 African-American / Black 2 Asian or Pacific Islander 3 Hispanic/ Latino 4 Other(specify ) 5 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 6 66) How long have you lived in Salt Lake City? Less than 2 years 1 2 — 5 years 2 5 — 10 years 3 More than 10 years 4 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 5 67) How long have you lived at your present address? Less than 2 years 1 2 - 5years 2 5— 10 years 3 More than 10 years 4 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 5 68) Do you rent or own your home? Homeowner 1 Renter 2 Other 3 Refuse (DO NOT READ) 4 69) City District (DO NOT ASK; CODE 1-7, FROM SAMPLE) Thank you very much for sharing your opinions for this research. Interviewer(s) initials Date survey completed Target intersection: ©2010 Dan Jones&Associates 7 Salt Lake City Survey Area Reference Map 0 l ti.._ r ,, _ it = lir ,_:,,, : t, _ . _. , A l- . f `j -2�� VP" 4iirniiiia:41k\ _ iirr�� act obriiiiiII � iw • �f '," :�II n � 1� � - `� anat. 1)S-'/ ' lilliII 111U-11111r�` .� I1 u�.s. ,. ii�i°aii+iiii•i III '1 EII Ii11s11 diil leae , .. .....a i . a-_ l-- - '. - Well ill Ear ; i� ' : .. -`_ 'It V3� 1lr1��L' isiiiiiiii� /� irl w �L..■ .Fii.... . ais • �` - .. 1� i fi iim�i■ iniii -rm. te\\ . _��r�i��lienElNs��1eznazeniaMEM iiilnazi in_ 4 =...� Irru •ui�ar zma mil u v1aaiiii . Ii_ ...m:rTiiin �. ■ vinelli li_. . i w�.� � IIII�ii.nliiiillitargitimirmiIe�� 1i��E��! �� r 1l1111Esismosegms .�....agaiiliinlll�.. Illir..l .. .,6�...�_-� .. „ iniMil irri! a` Feg_ei if) Miliiitr:.:.. /FEL lrilitgan 101111 lator Arat=mri 69j rice aram Ili 'I'll c.. ...- 1 __, till OttMI artal—ommaii a•�-! __ --r G1t11 �,ice.. .9: =r . ....a. ..i.l 1111111,1111 .31 ,,,„,„ ......... „,,, maNsaiard ....N..==kird �� -- - - JtLiiii! L! idJtMUill u 0 110.,6111 ____.-- - 7 ME Yffi Itil.-LER liihilffilliiU% iam --ti., gmr.n • /I u p1, ra" ri ' 1.___` 1 '� ".'E ... 11 i iliii ll ( ; s ;^ .,1114 . mmi_s =i. '. :- I a VI 1 NM fit• 1 f aiir=i - �. El i t#alri d m - _L-, -t �- . t� , h-T 0 0.5 1 2 N Miles f; r \ 1 : O .. -•. a' • r I f N 7 C -I ' ' a/ ` D.t •i 'i •,' at� tJ to s • ..�" P, L �. • a v 7. . �c 7 .0 - o • �. �y• C.•. - • ,. J xL r_. 0 r.----: i 4 , C �- + a7 < 1. - N.. ., .•W • WN U Ljri, ' . (I) f CO f0 ;1r LIJ IIra 4 _ _C •O) 1 • v - I A, • .' .•_. N • 1. i A1 I . ' • I - i O • 1 ''isc•ul fear 1/I-1/ ('U' l'rojl'ci‘ ry 2011 Identilm f u,icl:ng Proposed ProposeU GF Proposed Oporr;iny Flip InfcrrnaLon Funding History ,r 5. Lc'pi s1 Amount Amount Class"C" burly't Inq;uct Notes Debi.1r'i r i i' Debt 1 City&County Building Debt Service-GO Bond Series 2001 $2,373,495 $2.373,495 $2,355,073 $0 None Debt service payment on bonds Issued to rehabilitate&refurbish the City& County Building. The City does not levy taxes against this Bond. Bonds mature 6/15/2011. Debt 2 Sales Tax-Series 2005A $1,387,490 $1.387,490 $1,387,490 $0 None Debt Service payment for sales tax bonds Issued to refund the remaining MBA series 1999A,1999B,&2001 Bonds. Bonds mature 10/1/2020. Debt 3 Sales Tax-Series 2007 $405,345 $405,345 $105,345 $0 None Debt Service payment for bonds Issued for TRAX Extension&Grant Tower Improvements. Bonds mature 10/1/2026. Debt 4 Sales Tax-Series 2009A $2,164,181 $2,164,181 $2,163,950 $0 None Debt Service payment for bonds Issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,construction,Improvement&remodel of a new Public Services maintenance fadilty,a building for use as City offices&other capital Imorovenwnts a Cite.Bonds mature 10/1/2078. Debt Service Total $6,330,511 $6,330,511 $6,011,858 $0 • 1 Fiscal Year 2010- a FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& °, Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description History ° Funding m � Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes Genera(Fuird-Pay.Is 1 iru Go 1 Streets 1 ADA Ramps/Comer Repairs 2010/2011-Citywide 1 1 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 None ADA Ramp Transition To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps&related repairs to corners& 00-04 $1,485,241 No additional Plan walkways including sidewalk,curb,gutter&corner drainage improvements. 04-05 $ 600,000 increase 10 Year CIP Plan Design$27,400. Construction inspection&admin$29,600. Locations to be 05-06 $400,000 FY06-16 determined based by City's ADA Ramp Transition Plan in conjunction with the 06-07 $433,418 All Districts Salt Lake Accessibility Committee,the City's Accessibility Services Advisory 07-08 $ 400,000 Council&requests from persons with disabilities. 'Funding history includes 08-09 $ 225,000 4110 allocations over a 11 year period. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 09-10 $ 300,000 Total $3,843,659• 2 Parks 4 ADA Playground Improvements-Kletting Park,170 No."B"Street;Cotton 2 2 $116,200 $115,200 $116,200 None Park,300 E.Downington;Davis Park,1980 E.950 So.;Wasatch Hollow Park,1700 So.1700 E. Parks Inventory of To design&provide improvements to include ADA accessible playground No additional ADA Needs surfacing,concrete wheel chair ramps,limited playground equipment increase Assessment modifications/upgrades&make associated landscape repairs as necessary. 10 Year CIP Plan Design$9,000. Engineering fees$2,100. Construction inspection&admin FY08-09 $6,100. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Districts 3.5&6 3 Streets 2 Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Concrete Sawing 2010/2011-Citywide 3 3 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide sidewalk rehabilitation&reduction of tripping hazards through 03-05 $350,000 No additional FY06-16 concrete sawing or grinding. Process eliminates displacement of up to one& 05-06 $ 400,000 increase All Districts one-half inch&provides a significant cost savings over removal&replacement. 06-07 $ 150,000 Design$14,500. Construction inspection&admin$15,100. 'Funding history 07-08 $ 200,000 includes allocations over 8 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 08-09 $ 175,000 09-10 $200,000 Total $1,475,000• 4 Trails 3 900 South Rail Corridor&Surplus Canal Trails Design/Master Plan 32 4 $100,000 $0 $100,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To design for future construction a shared use trail along the surplus canal from Design Master Plan 2100 So.to 800 So.&along the abandoned 900 So.rail line. Design$100,000. 10 Year CIP Plan Supports City's sustainability efforts. Districts 2&5 5 Parks Fairmont Park Irrigation System-900 East Simpson Ave. 33 5 $649;200 $0 $599,200 None Fairmont Park Master To design&reconstruct existing irrigation system to include pipes,valves, No additional Plan 10 heads,controllers&central control connection&associated landscape repairs increase ear CIP Plan as necessary. Design$50,000. Engineering fees$9,200. Construction trict 7 inspection&admin$40,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 2 Fiscal Year 2010- _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& i, Puncling Proposed Proposed GE Proposed Operation Plan Information Pto;ec',Drsc;ption Funding History a Request Amount Amount Class"C" Brio 1, a npoeI Notes 6 Transportation 1 Traffic Signal Upgrades-Main Street/1700 So.;300 West/1700 So.;2000 5 6 $980,000 $480,000 $480,000 Minimal East/2700 So,;1100 East1100 So";1100 East/1300 So.;West Temple/1700 So. Transportation Plan To remove&replace six(6)existing traffic signals with equipment that includes 00-04 $1,970,000 $360 annual 10 Year CIP Plan steel poles,span wire,signal heads&traffic signal loops,mast arm poles,new 04-05 $ 500,000 increase FY06-16 signal heads,pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers,Improved loop 06-07 $ 450,000 DisMcts 4,5&7 detection,&left turn phasing as needed. Design$98,000. Engineering fees 07-08 $ 500,000 $96,000. Construction inspection&admin$24,000. •Funding history includes 08-09 $ 640,000 allocations over 9 year period.Class"C"funds awarded in FY 09/10 Supports 09-10 $ 560,000 Citys sustalnability efforts. Total $4,820,000• 7 Transportation 3 Pedestrian Safety Devices&HAWK Signal-1300 South 600 East 6 7 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 None All Districts To install a High intensity Activated Crosswalk(HAWK)pedestrian signal at 02-03 $ 50,000 No additional 1300 South 600 East. Remaining funds will be used for the installation of other 03-04 $ 60,000 increase pedestrian safety devices to include flashing warning lights,pedestrian refuge 05-06 $ 50,000 islands,signalized pedestrian crossings&new or improved pavement markings 06-07 $120,000 in various locations city wide. Design$11,000. Engineering fees$11,000. 07-08 $ 50,000 Construction inspection&admin$2,750.•Funding history includes allocations 08-09 $ 75,000 over 7 year period.Support Citys susteinability efforts. 09-10 $ 75,000 Total $480,000* 8 Streets 5 Local Street Reconstruction FY 10/11 7 8 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 None Pavement To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local streets to include replacement of 01-04 $4,872,123 No additional Management Plan street pavement,sidewalk,curb,gutter&drainage improvements as funds 04-05 $1,000,000 increase 10 Year CIP Plan permit. Proposed Streets indude Wright Brothers Drive,I-80 ramp to 424 ft. 05-06 $1,000,000 FY06-16 North of Amelia Earhart Drive;Challenger Road,Harold Gatty Drive to North Cul-06-07 $1,500,000 .tricts 1,2,5,6,&7 De Sac end;Brentwood Circle,Parley's Way to Parley's Way;Windsor Circle, 07-08 $1,000,000 2700 So.to North Cul-De-Sac end;800 West,Arapahoe Ave to East Cul-De 08-09 $1,000,000 Sac end;Pioneer Circle,1000 Wet to Cul-De-Sac end;Emerson Ave,1500 to 09-10 $ 765.356 1700 East;Military Drive,Yale Ave to Yalecrest Ave;Stringham Ave,Highland Total $11,137,479• Drive to Highland Drive. Design$158,000. Construction inspection&admin $184,000. •Funding history Includes allocations over 10 year period. Supports Citv's sustainabilihtsforts. 9 Trails/Open Space 1 Salt Lake Open Space Signage 8 9 $203,875 $203,875 $203,875 None All Districts To provide funding for graphic design,development&installation of Way finding, No additional Interpretive,Use&Boundary,Restoration&Trail Marker signage for the Jordan increase River Parkway,the Wasatch Hollow Open Space Area&the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Design$65,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 3 Fiscal Year 2010- a FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier 8 °, Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating rrr Plan Information Project Description Funding History 0o n- Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 10 Parks 11 Tree Replacement-Parks City Wide 9 10 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 None All Districts To replace existing deteriorated,damaged or removed trees throughout City 05-06 $50,000 No additional parks. Design$4,300. Construction inspection&admin$3,000. 06-07 $50,000 increase 07-08 $50,000 Total $150,000* 11 Streets 4 City Creek Canyon Washout Repair 10 11 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None District 3 To repair the washout area&stabilize the hillside in City Creek Canyon. No additional Design$14,500. Construction inspection&admin$15,200. Supports City's increase sustainability efforts. ublic Facilities 1 C&C Building Roof&Gutter Repair-451 So.State Street 11 12 $230,994 $230,994 $230,994 None District 4 To replace all cracked,broken&missing slate shingles,replace all asphalt No additional shingles,Inspect masonry joints&repair as necessary,inspect&repair flashing, increase &dean&repair gutters. Design$22,578. Engineering fees$5,210. Construction Inspection&admin$12,158. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 13 Public Facilities 3 Plaza 349 Fire Sprinkler System-349 South 200 East 12 13 $467,000 $487,000 $467,000 None District 4 To upgrade fire sprinkler system on 1st floor to consist of fire piping risers, No additional branch piping over all floors sprinkler heads for proper water flow distribution, increase pumps to upper floors&fire hose connections in stairwells on each floor. Design$47,683. Engineering fees$11,659. Construction Inspection&admin $24,796. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 14 Public Facilities 2 Fire Station#2 HVAC System&Water Line Replacements-270 West 300 13 14 $479,864 $479,884 $479,864 None North District 3 To replace HVAC system including replacement of all culinary water lines,all No additional drain/waste lines,all fan coil air distribution systems,&2 gas fires modine increase heaters in apparatus bay with high efficiency co-ray-vac system. Design $46,962. Engineering fees$6,502. Construction inspection&admin$28,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 15 Trails 2 Jordan River Trail Design-200 South to North Temple 14 15 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To develop a Master Plan& design for future construction Jordan River Trail 00-02 $ 415,550 Design Master Plan 10 development from 200 South to North Temple. Engineering will work closely 04-05 $ 320,000 Year CIP Plan FY06- with Union Pacific Railroad(UPR)to design this section of the trail because it 05-06 $ 170,000 16 crosses the east/west mainline UPR tracks. Design$100,000. *Funding 07-08 $ 375,000 - District 2 history includes allocations over 7 year period. Supports Citys sustainability 08-09 $ 200,000 .. efforts. Total $1,106,550" • Fiscal Ycor 2010- _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Eolyd Mayor's Mayors trill Idc nut,cr& ° Funding Proposed Proposed OF Proposed Operai o l Plan tion Pray cl Dr.,,iplinn Funding History Request Amount Amount Class"C" s 18 Transportation 5 Traffic Safety Street lighting Additions-Mid Block Light Requests 15 16 525,000 $25,000 $25,000 Minimal Street Lighting To design,purchase&Install lightffat mid-block Intervals where warranted&as 05-06 $ 50,000 $936.00 annual Master Plan requested by the majority of the nearby residents,In keeping with the Street Total $ 50,000 increase in All Districts Lighting Master Plan&Policy.Funding amount will provide approximately 12 power usage street lights.Supports City's sustainability efforts. 17 Public Facilities 9 Fire Training Center Roof Replacement-1600 So.Industrial Blvd. 16 17 5509,675 $509,675 $509,675 None District 2 To remove&replace the existing roof with a sustainable,lightweight concrete No additional product,providing sound substrate&insulation. Design$49,817. Engineering increase fees$11,496. Construction inspection&admin$6,825. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 18 Streets 8 Rose Park Golf Course Salt Storage Design-1700 North Redwood Road 17 18 535,000 $35,000 $35,000 None District 1 To evaluate the Rose Park Goff Course maintenance yard to determine a salt Design storage site,create a salt storage facility design&prepare a cost estimate for construction of a 1000 Ton open salt storage paved area. Design$35,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 19 Public Facilities 8 Memorial House Renovations-848 No.Canyon Road 18 19 5143,812 $143,812 $143,812 None District 3 To provide exterior renovations to include replacement of water damaged fascia, No additional molding&metal flashing,power wash&repaint stucco&exterior wood,replace increase patio doors&glass panes,replace North retaining wall,install rear drainage system so runoff water runs away from building,replace plates on water damaged floor joists&repair floor joists as needed. Design$14,057. Engineering fees$3,244. Construction inspection&admin$7,569.Supports Citys suatainability efforts. Note:Building would possibly need to be closed during renovations. 24111rks 3 Liberty Park Rotary Playground Improvements-9001300 South.,500 to 19 20 $369,657 $369,857 $369,657 None 700 East. District 5 To provide improvements to indude replacing or repairing several swings& 00-02 $3,952,753 No additional other miscellaneous playground facilities,replace drinking fountain,all broken 02-03 $2,170,000 increase concrete&railings,repaint decks,hand rails&signage,&make associated 03-04 $2,000,000 landscape repairs as necessary.Included in this request is an upgrade to the 04-05 $1,000,000 existing splash pad from a high use water source to a newly developed recycle 05.06 $1,000,000 &water treatment system for$183,534. Design$28,633. Engineering fees 06-07 $ 653,000 $6,586. Construction inspection&admin$19,471. *Funding history includes 07-08 $ 600,000 allocations over an 9 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Total $11,375,753• 5 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& a. Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Class"C' Budget Impact Notes 21 Public Facilities 33 Plaza 349 Employee Showers-349 South 200 East 58 21 580,500 $0 $80,500 None District 4 To construct three employee showers on the 2nd floor in the Plaza 349 building. No additional Submitted by Construction costs includes remodel of existing facilities to reduce break room increase Transportation size&relocation of one office for shower facilities,installation of new water Department heater,gas line&electrical components. Design$4,800.Construction, inspection&admin$4,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 22 Parks 15 Sugar House Park Slgnage Project-1330 East 2100 South 23 22 530,000 $30,000 $30,000 None District 7 To design,construct&install new signage to include park rules,park traffic& No additional Board Submitted by pavilion Interpretive signs. Sugar House Park Authority has paid$35,000 for the increase recommended nstituent,Sugar purchase&installation of park&pavilion entry signage. They are also full funding when Ouse Park Authority requesting$30,000 from the County. Design fees$3,000. Supports Citys allocation was sustainability efforts. assumed to be $6.7 23 Parks 9 Herman Franks Park Baseball Improvements-700 East 1300 South 21 23 $516,400 $40,000 $511,890 None Parks Recovery To design&construct improvements to three ball fields to include sod removal, No additional $40,000 for Action Plan laser grading of fields to improve surface drainage,replacement of Infield soil, increase Design 10 Year CIP Plan make sprinkler Irrigation system upgrades,replace sod&provide shade FY07-08 structures to six dug-outs. Design$40,000. Engineering fees$9,200. District 5 Construction inspection&admin$27,200. 24 Percent for Art Percent for Art 20 24 560,000 $60,000 $80,000 None To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement,railings,sculptures& $570,000* other works of art. 'Funding history indicates all funds received over 7 year period. 25 Cost Over-run Cost Over-run 22 25 $88,360 $63,660 None Funds set aside to address project cost over-runs. No additional Increase • • 6 Fiscal You 2010- _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identdier S - Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed OM t.-01ng Plan Inton nation Prop c t Cr-,r ripi'oa funding History - Request Amount Amount Class"C' Budyot Impact Notes 26 Streets 3 Sidewalk Replacement SAA 2010/2011 -2700 South to South City Limits,& 4 26 $855,000 $855,000 $0 None 1300 East/Nighland Drive to East City Limits 10 Year CIP Plan To design,construct&create a Special Assessment Area(SAA)for sidewalk 05-06 $ 599,823 No additional FY06-16 Improvements in the proposed area as funding permits.Improvements include 06-07 $ 400,000 increase Districts 7 sidewalk,ADA pedestrian ramps as needed,limited replacement of trees,& 07-08 $ 550,000 some corner drainage Improvements. $50,000 of this request is for area 08-09 $ 700,000 determination&design of 2011/2012 SAA. Design$100,000. This amount 09-10 $ 765,356 includes$50,000 of property owners portion of the SAA. Construction Total $3,015,179 Inspection$100,000.Design for 2010/2011 SAA$50,000.Construction Inspection&admin$100,000. ($50,000 CIP,$50,000 SAA). SAA processing $40,000. *Funding history indudes allocations over 5 year period. Supports City's sustainablllty efforts. Note: Property Owners portion of SAA Is$875,000. If approved,an$875,000 budget needs to be established for Properly Owners portion of SAA. 27 Public Facilities 5 Pioneer Precinct Energy Conservation Project-1040 West 700 South 24 27 $124,558 $0 $0 None District 2 To replace the obsolete,Inefficient boilers with new 95%efficient condensing No additional Board boilers,program each office,dassroom&meeting area for occupancy&use increase recommended ovenides,install high efficiency motors on ventilation system&a variable full funding when frequency drive on motor to control static pressure&air exchange rates& allocation was upgrade parking lot lights with efficient Induction lighting. Design$12,665. assumed to be Engineering fees$1,802. Construction Inspection&admin$7,794. Supports $6.7 Citys sustalnabillty efforts. 28 Parks 2 600 East Islands irrigation System Rebuild-600 East,So.Temple to 600 25 28 $204,900 $0 $0 None South District 7 To design&reconstruct existing island irrigation systems to include pipes, No additional Board 4111 valves,heads,controllers&connection to central irrigation control system& increase recommended make associated landscape repairs as necessary. Design$17,100. full funding when Engineering fees$3,600. Construction inspection&admin$13,700. Supports allocation was Citys sustainabilky efforts. assumed to be $6.7 29 Trails 5 Jordan&Salt Lake City Canal Corridor Trail Master Plan 26 29 $100,000 $0 $0 None District 7&5 To develop a Master Plan to aid the City&SLC Public Utilities in the future Design development of the Jordan canal corridor right-of-ways. PU holds the right-of- way for the canal corridors. Plan$100,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 7 Fiscal Year 2010- .o FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& °. Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History to Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 30 Streets 6 Residential Concrete Street Rehabilitation-Princeton Ave.,1700 to 1800 27 30 $486,800 $0 $0 None East 10 Year CIP Plan To rehabilitate the existing deteriorated concrete street to include concrete No additional FY06-16 pavement replacement or rehabilitation,drive approaches,curb&gutter, increase District 6 sidewalk as needed&ADA accessibility ramps. Design$33,400. Construction Inspection&admin$35,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 31 Trails 4 SLC Wayfinding Sign Restoration 28 31 $150,000 $0 $0 None Districts 3,4,6&7 To repair,repaint&update the SLC wayfinding signs installed in 2001 within the No additional Central Business District,the Sugar House Business District&the University of increase Utah.Supports City's sustainability efforts. ransportatlon 4 Traffic Signal Installations-California Ave.,3400&3800 West 29 32 $270,000 $0 $0 Minimal District 2 To design&construct two new traffic signals where none currently exist on $90 annual California Ave.,at 3400 West&3800 West. Design$52,000.Engineering fees increase $52,000. Construction,inspection&admin$12,000. Total Project cost is $400,000.Transportation's intent is to request Impact Fees for remainder of costs. 'Funding history includes allocations over 6 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 33 Transportation 2 300 West 1300 South Right Turn Lane-Northbound to Eastbound 30 33 $50,000 $0 $0 None District 5 To design&construct a northbound to eastbound right turn lane at the No additional intersection of 300 West&1300 South. Project requires relocation of Rocky increase Mountain Power transmission&distribution poles,&relocation of a traffic signal mast arm pole&controller cabinet. City CIP funds will be used to complete environmental work&provide local match of$20,000 to a$250,000 Congestion Management/Air Quality(CMAQ)Federal grant which Transportation has obtained. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 34 Transportation 6 1300 East Traffic Safety Measures Implementation-1300 East,2100 South 31 34 $150,000 $0 $0 None to 3300 South Transportation To implement traffic safety measures on 1300 East as identified in the 1300 No additional Master Plan East Study. Phase I improvements include signing upgrades,striping changes increase District 4,5,6,7 &installation of HAWK Beacon at Stratford Ave. Design$10,000. Engineering fees$15,000. Construction Inspection&admin$5,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • Fiscal Yesr 2010. _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Bayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Oncratinci Plan Intonnatioi, Funding History ui Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Inipoet Notes 35 Streets 7 Residential Concrete Street Rehabilitation-Yalecrest Ave,1600 East to 34 35 $406,000 $0 $0 None Military Drive,&Yalecrest/Milltaiy Intersection Landscaped Island 10 Year CIP Plan To rehabilitate the existing deteriorated concrete street to Include concrete No additional FY06-16 pavement replacement or rehabilitation,drive approaches,curb&gutter repair increase District 6 or replacement as needed,sidewalk repairs,ADA accessibility ramps&storm drain improvements. Design$28,000. Construction inspection&admin $30,000.Supports City's sustainability efforts. 36 Transportation 7 Traffic Signal Installation-600 South 600 Eat 35 36 $160,000 $0 $0 None Transportation To design&construct a traffic signal where none currently exists on 600 South $90 annual Master Plan 600 East.Traffic studies which findings Include Increased traffic,accident Increase 10 Year CIP Plan history,&changing traffic conditions Indicate that a new light is warranted at this FY06-16 Intersection. Design$21,000.Engineering fees$21,000. Construction, District 4 Inspection&admin$5,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 37 Public Facilities 6 Justice Court HVAC Energy Conservation Upgrades-333 South 200 East 36 37 $379,959 $0 $0 None District 4 To provide upgrades to existing HVAC system to include installation of control No additional dampers on retum air ducts,relief air transfer openings&chilled water bypass increase piping&control valves. Design$37,180. Engineering fees$5,291. Construction,inspection&admin$22,881. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 38 Public Facilities 14 C&C Building Carpet,Flooring/Electrical Replacement,3rd&5th Floors- 37 38 $748,907 $0 $0 None 451 So.State Street City's Master Plan To replace&install a low access sub floor,replace existing electrical flatwire& No additional District 4 purchase&install new carpet on the 3rd&5th floor of the C&C Building. Increase Design$97,358. Engineering fees$14,978. Construction inspection&admin $59,912. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 30blic Facilities 15 C&C Building Carpet,Flooring/Electrical Replacement,2nd Floor-451 So. 38 39 $617,849 $0 $0 None State Street Citys Master Plan To replace&install a low access sub floor,replace existing electrical flatwire& No additional District 4 purchase&install new carpet on the 2nd floor of the C&C Building. Design increase $44,934. Engineering fees$11,234. Construction inspection&admin$56,168. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 40 Public Facilities 24 C&C Building Carpet,Flooring/Electrical Replacement,1st Floor-451 So. 39 40 $748,907 $0 $0 None State Street Citys Master Plan To replace&install a low access sub floor,replace existing electrical flatwire& No additional District 4 purchase&Install new carpet on the 1st floor of the C&C Building. Design increase $97,358. Engineering fees$14,978. Construction inspection&admin$59,912. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 9 Fiscal Year 2010- -o FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& °, Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History xi a Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 41 Public Facilities 19 C&C Building Carpet,Flooring/Electrical Replacement,4th Floor-451 So. 40 41 $748,907 $0 $0 None State Street Citys Master Plan To replace&install a low access sub floor,replace existing electrical flatwire& No additional District 4 purchase&install new carpet on the 4th floor of the C&C Building. Design increase $97,358. Engineering fees$14,978. Construction inspection&admin$59,912. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 42 Public Facilities 11 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 41 42 $170,292 $0 $0 None Street imeDistrict 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 1st floor,south end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$16,664. Engineering fees increase $2,371. Construction,inspection&admin$10,225. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 43 Public Facilities 12 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 42 43 $194,620 $0 $0 None Street District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 3rd floor,south end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$19,044. Engineering fees increase $2,710. Construction,inspection&admin$11,720. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 44 Public Facilities 13 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 43 44 $182,456 $0 $0 None Street District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 3rd floor,north end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$17,854. Engineering fees increase $2,541. Construction,Inspection&admin$10,987. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 45 Public Facilities 23 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 44 45 $170,292 $0 $0 None Street District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 4th floor,south end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$16,664. Engineering fees increase $2,371. Construction,inspection&admin$10,255. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 46 Public Facilities 25 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 45 46 $137,176 $0 $0 None Street - District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 2nd floor,south end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$13,185. Engineering fees increase $2,033. Construction,inspection&admin$6,592. Supports City's sustainability• efforts. 10 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 201 Ide ntifor 8 FF,ndlnn Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Or.t.,in_i Plan Infoimnhon Protect 0 r ipt'o^ Funding History L.E. Request Amount Amount Class"C' Burlgct Imhaet Notes 47 Public Facilities 26 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wail Unit Replacement-451 So.State 46 47 $208,784 $0 $0 None Street District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 5th floor of the C&C Building with No additional new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$20,235. Engineering fees$2,880. increase Construction,inspection&admin$12,452. Supports Cilys sustainability efforts. 48 Public Facilities 7 Irrigation Water Conservation&Asset Renewal Design-100 So. Main St. 47 48 $173,888 $0 $0 None &part of West Temple,100 So.Regent to Main St.,300 So.Main St.to Exchange Place,4th So.Main to Cactus St North Side City's Master Plan To provide design of 4 locations for future replacement of deteriorating Design District 4 galvanized pipe located beneath concrete&pavers with new PVC main irrigation service line,electronic valves,backflow devices,irrigation lines to trees,bubblers in tree planters,irrigation management system,failure&low flow alarms,low voltage controls,landscape lighting,auto-drain valves&replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers. Design$141,284. Engineering fees$32,604. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 49 Public Facilities 22 Plaza 349 Parking Structure improvements&Security System-349 South 48 49 $261,682 $0 $0 None 200 East District 4 To construct improvements to include scarifying&lowering parking structure nal pavement surface&ramps,apply adhesion base&two-inch concrete overlay, No cradease install new retractable security y increase my gate with electronic code reader system,&install electronic security devices on all entry doors to parking structure. Design $24,651. Engineering fees$5,688. Construction inspection&admin$13,274. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 50 Public Facilities 18 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 49 50 $170,292 $0 $0 None Street ilstrict 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 4th floor,north end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$16,664. Engineering fees Increase $2,371. Construction,inspection&admin$10,255. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 51 Public Facilities 21 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 50 51 $158,129 $0 $0 - None Street District 4 To replace heating/cooling wall units on the 2nd floor,north end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$15,474. Engineering fees increase $2,202. Construction,inspection&admin$9,522. Supports City's sustainability efforts. , 11 Fiscal Year 2010- a FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& s, Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History m Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 52 Public Facilities 16 C&C Building Heating/Cooling Wall Unit Replacement-451 So.State 51 52 5137,176 $0 $0 None Street District 4 To replace heatinglcooling wall units on the 1st floor,north end of the C&C No additional Building,with new efficient Fan Coil Units. Design$13,185. Engineering fees increase $2,033. Construction,Inspection&admin$6,592. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 53 Public Facilities 20 Parking Lot Repairs&Replacements-Fire Stations#4,#5&West Side 52 53 $338,192 $0 $0 None Senior Center *Districts 3 8 4 To remove&replace the concrete driveway of Fire Station#4 located at 830 E. No additional 1100 Ave.,replace top layer of asphalt on drive&lot of Fire Station#5 located increase at 1023 E.900 So.&replace top layer of asphalt on drive&lot&make slope changes for proper drainage at the West Side Senior Center located at 868 W. 900 So. Design$33,056. Engineering fees$7,628. Construction inspection& admin$17,800 Supports City's sustainability efforts. 54 Parks 10 Rotary Glen Park improvements-2770 East 840 South 53 54 5325,000 $0 $0 None Rotary Glen Master To design&construct improvements to include replacement of existing Prior yrs $285,000 No additional Plan restroom,utilities to support restroom&drinking fountain,make associated 05-06 $ 95,000 increase 10 Year CIP Plan repairs to parking lot due to replacement of collapsed sewer line under parking Total 5380,000 FY08-09 lot&possibly bury the overhead Rocky Mountain Power electrical lines,&make District 6 necessary repairs to landscaping&sprinkler irrigation system at area construction. Design$25,000. Engineering fees$5,000. Construction inspection&admin$20,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 55 Public Facilities 17 Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation&Asset 54 55 5268,886 $0 $0 None Renewal Project Design-2100 So.,1000 E.to 1300 E.;Highland Dr., Westminster to Ashton Capital Asset To design for future replacement of deteriorating galvanized pipe located Design ' Renewal Plan beneath concrete&pavers with new PVC main Irrigation service line,electronic District 7 valves,beckflow devices,irrigation lines to trees,bubblers in tree planters, irrigation management system,failure&low flow alarms,low voltage controls, landscape lighting,auto-drain valves,replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers,install new sidewalk,curb,gutter as necessary remove&replace parking strip trees that are less than 3 feet from curb. Design $218,470. Engineering fees$50,416. Supports City's sustainability efforts. • 12 Fiscal Year 2010- _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Idc nG(;crS Funding Proposed Proposed GF P oposccl Opmoti;g Plan Intonnation Project Description Funding History „-; Request Amount Amount CIu e 'C" 6udgct hnlmct Notes 56 Streets 10 500 West Street Improvement Redesign-500 West,North Temple to 500 55 58 $150,000 $0 $0 None North District 3 Submitted To evaluate&re-design street improvements to include drainage,ctirb,gutter, Design by Constituent sidewalk&business access on 500 West Including areas near the Union Pacific Neighbor Works Salt switch boxes. Business owners have agreed to invest&install curb,sidewalk& Lake landscape improvements once the design is complete. Note: Constituent requested$60,000 for design. Engineering indicated the design would cost approximately$150,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 57 Parks 12 Fairmont Park Tennis Court Reconstructon-900 East Simpson Ave. 56 57 $969,200 $0 $0 Minimal 10 Year CIP Plan To replace five(5)existing tennis courts with four(4)full size&two(2)youth 08-09 $50,000 $800 per year . FY08-09 with new post tension courts,new fencing,net posts,landscaping&Irrigation Fairmont Park Master system,sidewalk along north side of courts,benches&drinking fountain. Plan Design complete. Engineering fees$18,400.Construction inspection&admin District 7 $70,400. Supports Citys sustainablllty efforts. 58 Public Facilities 28 Spring Mobile Field Building Steel&Roof Deck Painting-1365 So.West 57 58 $1,122,954 $0 $0 None Temple City's Master Plan To provide improvements to include sand blasting,scraping&wire brushing No additional Project could be District 5 rusted building steel beams,girders&steel railings,power wash surfaces,apply increase funded rust inhibitor primer coat&apply premium enamel finish paint with UV /constructed in protection. Design$105,841. Engineering fees$24,425. Construction 3rds inspection&admin.$54,800. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 59 Transportation a Wakara Way&Arapeen Drive Roundabout 59 59 $350,000 $0 $0 None Transportation To design&construct a roundabout on Wakara Way&Arapeen Drive in No additional Master Plan Research Park. Traffic conditions warrant the installation of traffic control increase strict 6 measures at this intersection. Design$35,000. Engineering fees$35,000. Construction Inspection&admin$10,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. arks 8 Tennis Court Resurfacing-Pioneer Park,300 W.350 So.;Reservoir Park, 60 60 $73,400 $0 $0 None 1300 E.So Temple;Sunnyside Park 840 So.1600 E. 10 Year CIP Plan To design&construct upgrades to existing tennis courts at Pioneer, Reservoir No additional FY08-09 &Sunnyside Parks. Upgrades Include repairing cracks,resurfacing courts,new increase Districts 3&4 net posts&line striping. Courts indude one at Pioneer Park,two at Reservoir Park,&two at Sunnyside Park. Existing fencing will remain in service for these facilities. Design$10,000. Construction inspection&admin$3,400. 13 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& e. Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 61 Streets 11 900 South Street Reconstruction-900 So.,2700 to 3200 West 61 61 $1,200,000 $0 $0 None District 2 Submitted To construct street improvements to include street pavement,curb,gutter, No additional by Constituent sidewalk&other necessary site improvements as needed. Note: Constituent increase Diversified Metal did not provide construction cost amount. Engineering indicated that a design Services,Inc. would be necessary to determine the actual cost estimate for construction&that the design would cost$200,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 62 Parks 5 City Cemetery Master Plan,Phase 2-200 North&"N"Street 62 62 $349,900 $0 $0 None District 3 To complete the City Cemetery Master Plan. Phase I of plan has been 07-08 $75,000 Plan completed&provided an analysis of roads,curbs,utilities&inventory of unused • areas of cemetery. Phase II of Plan will include a comprehensive study of buildings,office/residence,emergency management plan,cemetery operations, financial based projection based on current prices&budgets for proposed/required improvements&proposal of possible new facility layout scenarios including new inventory items to improve cemetery performance. Plan$318,100. Engineering fees$31,800. Not applicable to City's sustainability efforts. 63 Public Facilities 27 Spring Mobile Field Concourse"B"Waterproofing-1365 So.West Temple 63 63 $383,672 $0 $0 None Citys Master Plan To construct improvements to include cutting new expansion joints,remove No additional District 5 cracked caulking,grind&clean saw/expansion joints&dean surface deck for increase installation of Conipur Advantage 2-part concrete deck sealer. Design$36,142 Engineering fees$8,340. Construction inspection&admin.$19,462. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 64 Public Facilities 34 Downtown Business District Public Restroom Installation 64 64 $215,928 $0 $0 Minimal District 4 To design&construct 1 to 3 permanent public restrooms at strategic locations Cleaning& Submitted by throughout the downtown area. Sites to be determined. Cost of units include Servicing$3,000 Downtown Alliance $215,928 for 1 unit;$431,856 for 2 units;$633,924 for 3 units. Design$21,651. per unit on Engineering fees$3,081. Construction,inspection&admin$13,324. Supports annual basis City's sustainability efforts. 65 Parks 14 East Capitol Blvd.Curb,Sidewalk&Memory Grove Overlook 65 65 $383,000 $0 $0 None District 3 To design&construct median islands,new curb,gutter&bulb out areas, 08-09 $50,000 No additional sidewalks,crosswalks,&associated landscaping as necessary,&construct increase Memory Grove Park Overlook&Historical Interpretation Area. This will be a Joint project with UDOT,State Capitol Preservation Board&the City for a total project cost of$922,400. Citys portion of construction would include sidewalk& landscaping on east side&possibly construction of the Historic Overlook& Interpretation Area. Design$68,400. Engineering fees$12.700. Construction Inspection&admin$54,700. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 14 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 20111dentiiier S - Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Op..„tiny Plan information ProjeH Dese'pt.on Funding History = Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budg,1 Impact Notes 66 Public Facilities 30 Fire Station 83 66 66 83,413,630 $0 $0 None District 7 To replace Fire Station#3 in Sugaouse. Current building Is aged&does not No additional meet current size or seismic requirements. Design$156,910. Engineering fees increase $75,840. Supports Citys sustainabiiity efforts. 67 Public Facilities 10 C&C Building Base Isolator Testing&Analysis-451 So.State Street 67 67 8243,148 $0 $0 None District 4 To hire a consultant to perform a detailed testing&provide an analysis of the Analysis C&C Building Base Isolator's pertaining to the seismic Richter magnitude of 7.0 or higher. The C&C Building Base Isolators were designed to handle a seismic Richter of 6.0 magnitude. Consultant$243,148.Supports City's sustainability efforts. 68 Parks 6 Tracy Aviary Sidewalks&Tree Pruning-900-1300 South.,500 to 700 East 68 68 871,400 $0 $0 None District 5 To provide Improvements to Tracy Aviary site to indude replacement of 05-06 $116,200 No additional deteriorated sidewalks,prune existing trees&make associated landscape 07-08 $200,000 increase repairs as necessary. Design$23,220. Construction inspection&admin. $14,595. 69 Public Facilities 4 UTA TRAX Island Landscape 69 69 $123,375 $0 $0 None District 4 To replace existing TRAX island landscaping,from 150 W.,So Temple,down No additional Main Street to 450 South,400 South from State to 900 East,with improvements increase to indude removal of present shrubs&ground cover redesign landscaping &irrigation to water only shrubs&trees using a bubbler head delivery system, connect to existing water control system&replace with water appropriate shrubs,plants&rock. Design$12,545. Engineering fees$1,785. Construction inspection&admin$7,720. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 70 Streets 9 East Liberty Park Alley Improvement Study/Design-900 to 1300 South., 70 70 $40,000 $0 $0 None 700 to 1100 East littract 5 Submitted To determine the rehabilitation needs&prepare a preliminary design& Design by Constituent East construction cost estimate for upgrade of the public way alleys with Liberty Part improvements to indude new pavement or surface rehabilitation as needed. Community There are approximately 10 alleys within this area totaling approximately 4.6 Organization miles of surface. Design$40,000. Supports City's sustainabiiity efforts. (ELPOC) 15 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& °. Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Fundin History ° P 9 m 2 Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes 71 Parks 17 Parleys Way/WIlshire Park ADA Playground&Improvements•2810 East 71 71 $271,200 $0 $0 None 2400 South Districts 7 Submitted To design&provide construction improvements to include removal& No additional by Constituent, replacement of existing play structure with ADA accessibility playground Increase Parley's Way Park equipment with accessible surfacing,enlarge existing playground footprint to Improvement include accessible ramps,sidewalks&paths&repair associated irrigation,trees Committee &landscaping as necessary. Design$40,000. Engineering fees 5,000. Construction inspection&administration$17,600. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. arks 19 Rose Park Lane Walking Path Improvements- 72 72 530,200 $0 $0 None istrict 1 To purchase&plant approximately 42 trees& install irrigation feeder lines& 05-06 $30,000 No additional Submitted by bubblers to previously installed valves for tree irrigation. Design complete. increase Constituent Construction inspection&admin$3,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 73 Parks 7 Oak Hills Tennis Court Lighting-2425 East 1216 South 73 73 $56,240 $0 $0 None District 6 To provide court lighting to the four south bottom tennis courts providing No additional extended play during the spring&fall. Improvements include new light poles& increase fixtures which will be connected to existing power source. $50,000 was donated by the Concessionaire for this project. Design$7,000. Construction inspection &admin$4,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 74 Parks 13 Lindsey Garden Park,7th Ave."N"Street or 5th Ave"C"Street Tennis 74 74 $597,800 $0 $0 Minimal Court Reconstruction 10 Year CIP Plan To remove two existing tennis courts,retaining walls&trees,&reconstruct two No additional FY08-09 new post tension courts,new fencing,new retaining walls&associated increase District 3 landscaping as necessary,at either Lindsey Garden Park or 5th Ave."C"Street. Design$58,500.Engineering fees$8,300.Construction inspection&admin $36,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 75 Parks 16 Avenues Community Tennis Center Design-11th Avenue Park 75 75 $80,000 $0 $0 None District 3 To design a community tennis center at 11th Avenue Park that includes No additional Submitted by architectural design of landscaping,facilities&amenities,development phases increase Constituent,Avenues &community activities/programming that will lead to the eventual construction of Community Tennis a club house&self sustaining community tennis facilities. Design$80,000. Association(ACTA) Supports Citys sustainability efforts. • 16 Fiscal Year 2010- FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Rood Mayor's Mayors 2111 Identitier8 P °, Funding Proposer! Proposed GP Proposer! Op_-rting Plan l,fuunanon Prolo ct Dcsa i piton Funding History Request Amount Amount Class"C' Budget Imp,,ct Notes 76 Parks 18 Imperial Neighborhood Park Project-1560 E.Atldn Avenue 76 76 $270,000 $0 $0 None District 7 To purchase.86 acres of property'tocated at 1560 E.Atkin Avenue for No additional Submitted by construction of future neighborhood park. The anticipated cost of property will increase Constituent,The be$850,000.The Imperial Neighborhood Park Association has currently raised Imperial $3,500 for this project. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Neighborhood Park Association 77 Transportation 9 Ballpark Neighborhood Enhancements 77 77 $400,000 $0 $0 None District 5 To evaluate,design&implement enhancements to include installation of driver No additional Submitted by feed back signs,upgraded safety lighting,neighborhood entrance markers& increase Constituent Ballpark bullbouts. Improvements are In priority order. Design Supports City's Community Council sustainability efforts. 78 Public Facilities 29 Fire Training Center Property Purchase 78 78 S0 $0 $0 None $650,000 District 1 Partial funding needed to purchase property directly north of Fire Station#14 No additional Impact Fee located on Industrial Road at approximately 1540 South for future site of the Fire increase Request Training Center. Impact Fee Request of$650,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 79 Public Facilities 31 Valley Police Alliance Evidence/Crime Lab 79 79 S0 $0 $0 None $7,000,000 All Districts-site to To develop,purchase and/or construct a centrally located facility to house No additional Possible Bond be determined combined services shared by all police agencies belonging to the Valley Police increase Alliance. Cost estimate is approximately$7,000,000.West Valley may be interested in a collaborated effort.Possible Bond item.Supports City's sustainability efforts. 80 Public Facilities 32 Liberty Precinct Police Station 80 80 $0 $0 $0 None $16,000,000 al Districts-site to To design&construct an eastside police facility housing Liberty Patrol. Cost No additional Possible Bond illirdetermined estimate includes a 2 acre land purchase&construction of a 24,500 sq ft facility. increase Cost estimate is approximately$16,000,000. Possible Bond item. Supports Citys sustainabillty efforts. General Fund Project Total $27,928,876 $6,194,437 $6,586,327 $0 Total GF CIP Including Debt Service $34,259,387 $12,524,948 $12,598,185 S0 17 Fiscal Year 2010- -2 °. FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History m a- Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes Fiscal }'ear 09-10 Class "C"Projects. 1 Class"C"1 700 South Reconstruction,Phase I-500/700 South,2800 West to 5600 1 1 5400,000 $400,000 $400,000 None West 10 Year CIP Plan To construct improvements to include pavement restoration,curb,gutter, 05-06 $ 255,000 No additional FY07-08 drainage improvements,upgrade to traffic flow characteristics&railroad 05-06 $200,000 increase District 2 crossing improvements. Total cost is$4,900,000. Engineering is requesting an 08-09 $400,000 additional$2,500,000 of Impact Fees. $200,000 of Impact Fees were awarded 09-10 $ 550,000 in FY05-06&$594,484 in 09/10. Phase I design complete. Construction 09-10 $ 594,484 Inspection&admin$60,000.*Funding history includes allocations over 4 year Total $1,999,484* period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 2 Class"C"2 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation-1300 South,500 to 700 West 2 2 5200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide partial match for UDOT&FHWA grant funding for rehabilitation of 0-07 $300,000 No additional FY07-08 viaduct including structural&seismic needs. Public Utilities will coordinate Total $300,000 increase Districts 2 necessary utility relocations&rehabilitations. Grant requires 7%or$840,000 match which will be requested over next 3 FY's.Total project cost estimate is approximately$12,000,000.Additional funds will be requested in future years CIP processes. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 3 Class"C"3 Street Pavement Overlay FY10/11-Citywide 3 3 51,310,000 $1,310,000 $1,310,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide pavement overlay including concrete,asphalt or other preservation 01-04 $4,500,000 No additional FY06-16 surface treatments determined by Pavement Management System&based on 04-05 $1,500,000 increase All Districts condition&need of fifteen(15)streets as funding permits. Other improvements 05-06 $1,500,000 Include ADA pedestrian ramps,sidewalk,curb,gutter repair&design funding for 06-07 $1,500,000 11/12 overlay project. Design$64,000. Construction inspection&admin 07-08 $1,500,000 82,600.'Funding history includes all Class"C"allocations over 9 year period. 08-09 $1,500,000 Supports City's sustainability efforts. 09-10 $1,400,000 Total 513,400,000* 4 Class"C"4 Concrete Streets Rehabilitation FY10/11 4 4 5200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide construction rehabilitation to deteriorated concrete streets Citywide. 00-01 $ 290,000 No additional FY07-08 Improvements to include slab replacement,grinding,resurfacing&Joint repair of 01-02 $ 100,000 increase District 2 twelve(12)streets as funding permits. Design$16,500. Construction 06-07 $ 200,000 inspection&admin$18,800. *Funding history includes Class"C"allocations 07-08 $ 200,000 over 6 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 08-09 $ 200,000 09-10 $ 190,000 Total 51,180,000* • 18 FlscI Year 2010- _ FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 IdanOte i& '1. Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operntir l Plan l itonnntion Prcijo at Deecnpaon Funding Hr-tory 52. zi Request Amount Amount Class'0 Budget Impact Notes 5 Class"C"5 500 East Rehabilitation,Phase I-500 East 1300 to 1700 South 5 5 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To bank funding for Phase I of maibr rehabilitation to 500 East,from 1300 to 08-09 $750,000 No additional FY07-08 1700 South. Improvements to include street pavement restoration,removal& Total $750,000 increase Districts 5,7 replacement of defective sidewalk,curb&gutter,ADA pedestrian ramps& upgrades to traffic signals. Project will coordinate installation of major storm drain lines with Public Utilities.Additional funding for Phase I will be requested in FY11/12 CIP Process. Phase II funding,500 East,1700 to 2100 South will be requested in future years. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 6 Class"C"6 Street Pavement Management Survey 6 6 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 None All Districts To perform a citywide street pavement condition survey to collect data for use in determining appropriate pavement management strategies for at streets Survey citywide. Survey is updated approximately every 5 years with state of the art electronic equipment. Data collected is used to determine overall street network condition&prioritize street maintenance by defined street segments. 7 Class"C"7 Bridge Evaluation&Maintenance 7 7 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 None Districts 1,2&7 There are 27 bridges within the SLC boundaries with most crossing either the Survey Jordan Rover or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these bridges every two years&provides the City with a basic condition report. SLC Is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. Engineering is preparing an ongoing bridge maintenance program with the objective of extending the functional life of these structures& extending the time line between major repairs. This request will address condition evaluation,routine maintenance&timely repairs.Study$50,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. • Class"C"Fund Total $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $0 $2,800,000 19 Fiscal Year 2010- -o •a FY 2010-2011 CDCIP Board Mayor's Mayors 2011 Identifier& Funding Proposed Proposed GF Proposed Operating Plan Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Class"C" Budget Impact Notes =iscal }'ear(19-10 Impact Fee Projects 1 Public Facilities 29 Fire Training Center Property Purchase 1 1 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 None District 1 Partial funding needed to purchase property directly north of Fire Station#14 No additional Impact Fee located on Industrial Road at approximately 1540 South for future site of the Fire increase Request-See Training Center. Impact Fee Request of$650,000. Supports City's PF 29 Above sustainability efforts. 2 Class"C"1 700 South Reconstruction,Phase I-500/700 South,2800 West to 5600 2 2 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 None West W0 Year CIP Plan To construct improvements to include pavement restoration,curb,gutter, 05-06 $255,000 No additional Impact Fee 1'07-08 drainage improvements,upgrade to traffic flow characteristics&railroad 05-06 $200,000 increase Request-See District 2 crossing improvements. Total cost Is$4,900,000. Engineering is requesting an 08-09 $400,000 Class"C"1 additional$2,500,000 of Impact Fees. $200,000 of Impact Fees were awarded 09-10 $ 550,000 Above in FY05-06&$594,484 in 09/10. Phase I design complete. Construction 09-10 $ 594,484 inspection&admin$60,000. 'Funding history includes allocations over 4 year Total $1,999,484' period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Impact Fees Fund Total $3,150,000 $3,150,000 $3,150,000 $0 'iscal Year 09-10 Special,Issessment(S.-I-I) Projects 1 Class"C"1 700 South Reconstruction,Phase I-500/700 South,2800 West to 5600 1 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 None West SAA 10 Year CIP Plan To construct improvements to include pavement restoration,curb,gutter, 05-06 $255,000 No additional SAA Request- FY07-08 drainage improvements,upgrade to traffic flow characteristics&railroad 05-06 $200,000 increase See Class"C"1 District 2 crossing improvements. Total cost is$4,900,000. Engineering is requesting an 08-09 $400,000 Above additional$2,500,000 of Impact Fees and$2,000,000 of SAA budget to collect 09-10 $550,000 the property owners assessment of the project.$200,000 of Impact Fees 09-10 $594,484 awarded in FY05-06&$594,484 in 09/10. Phase I design complete. Total $1,999,484' Construction inspection&admin$60,000. 'Funding history includes allocations over 4 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. SAA Fund Total $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Total FY 10-11 CIP $42,209,387 $20,474,948 $17,748,185 $2,800,000 Mayor's Proposed CIP-All fund class total $20,548,185 • 20